IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.878 of 2009 Rajanish Kumar Singh(Minor), son of Niteshwar Singh, under the guardianship of his natural guardian and father Niteshwar Singh who has no adverse interest, resident of village Belahi Jairam, P.S. Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi…Transposed defendant no.2-Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Ramdulari Devi wife of Tej Narayan Singh, Resident of village Belahi Jairam, P.S. Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi ……Defendant 1st set. 2. Most.Ratan Devi wife of Ranbir Singh Resident of village Belahi Jairam, P.S. Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi ….Defendant 2nd set. 3. Parvati Devi wife of late Birendra Kumar Singh 4. Ganesh Singh, son of late Birendra Kumar Singh 5. Mithilesh Singh, son of late Birendra Kumar Singh All 3 to 5 are residents of village Belahi Jairam, P.S. Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi. …..Objectors-transposed plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. For the petitioner :M/s Abinash Kumar and Virendra Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 01.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is being heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the transposed defendant no.-2-petitioner challenging order dated 01.05.2009 by which learned Munsif Sadar, Sitamarhi rejected his application for allowing the finger print and handwriting expert to depose as witness after recalling order dated 08.04.2009 by which the evidence of the petitioner was closed in Title Suit No.90 of 1998. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff through his natural guardian and father for declaration that sale deed dated 01.11.1996 was illegal, void and inoperative and not binding upon 2 the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants and subsequently the petitioner was transposed from plaintiff to defendant no.2. 4. Thereafter issues were framed and evidence started and the evidence of the plaintiffs was completed on 29.05.2008 on which date the defendants including the petitioner were given time to produce their evidence, but the petitioner sought adjournment on 05.06.2008 which was allowed with cost, but on 11.06.2008, 27.06.2008, 07.07.2008 and 14.07.2008 also the petitioners did not produce his evidence. 5. It is also clear from the impugned order that subsequently defendants produced five witnesses on several dates and on 12.11.2008 the application for adjournment sought by the petitioner was allowed conditionally, but again on 22.11.2008 an application for adjournment was also filed which was allowed on 06.01.2009 by a detailed order granting one opportunity in the interest of justice to defendant-petitioner with cost of Rs.500.00 directing him to produce all his witnesses within three dates. In compliance of the said order the defendant-petitioner produced several witnesses and finally his evidence was closed on 08.04.2009. 6. It transpires that only thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 08.04.2009 and 18.04.2009 for recall of order dated 08.04.2009 and for allowing him to produce some more witnesses. The learned court below very carefully considered the entire 3 matter in detail and came to the conclusion that the defendant- petitioner had been filing applications of the same nature again and again merely to delay the disposal of the suit and encouraging such attitude will not be in the interest of justice, specially when the suit is pending since more than a decade. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )