IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13954 of 2010 1. RAM CHANDRA MAHTO S/O LATE BINDESHWAR PRASAD @ CHATURI MAHTO R/O VILL.- UJJAIN, P.O. AND P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 2. RAMESHWAR MAHTO S/O LATE ASHARFI MAHTO R/O VILL.- UJJAIN, P.O. AND P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 3. SUNIL MAHTO S/O LATE ASHARFI MAHTO R/O VILL.- UJJAIN, P.O. AND P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 4. ANIL MAHTO S/O LATE ASHARFI MAHTO R/O VILL.- UJJAIN, P.O. AND P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA Versus 1. KISHORI MAHTO S/O LATE MOTI LAL MAHTO R/O VILL.- UJJAIN, P.O. AND P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 2. BODH NARAYAN LAL DAS S/O JATA SHANKAR LAL DAS R/O VILL.- UJJAIN, P.O. AND P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 3. SRI SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO S/O LATE MOTI LAL MAHTO R/O VILL.- UJJAIN, P.O. AND P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 4. BIMLA DEVI W/O SRI SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- UJJAIN, P.O. AND P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA ----------- 3/ 24/2/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the respondents. The respondents are the plaintiffs. Their application for expert evidence on the sale deed dated 5.6.1969 was allowed. The petitioner as the defendant then filed an application on 31.3.2009 to permit him to also lead expert evidence on that document which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 16.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even while the cross-examination of the expert witness was going on, the petitioner had filed an objection on 31.3.2009 to permit him to lead expert evidence on the sale deed also. No prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiff if the expert evidence of the petitioner was also allowed to be brought on record. 2 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the evidence and cross-examination of the expert witness on his behalf commenced on 20.3.2009 and finally concluded on 29.5.2009. In between, the petitioner filed his application dated 31.3.2009 disclosing no reasons for any justification to lead separate expert evidence by him and therefore the order of the court below rightly calls for no interference. Nothing has been placed before this Court that when the respondents filed their application to lead expert evidence on the sale deed, any reply to the same was filed by the petitioner. After their application for expert evidence came to be allowed, the petitioner is not stated to have questioned that order before any superior court. The petitioner has had full opportunity to cross-examine the expert and obtain all such evidence as he may have considered necessary in his interest notwithstanding the submission of an expert report on the document. Therefore, he is not to be prejudiced in any manner. In absence of any material being placed before this Court that the petitioner had objected to the expert opinion sought for by the respondents or that he questioned the final order allowing the same, the conclusion of the trial court that no reasons had been given in the application dated 31.3.2009 on what basis 3 another expert report had become necessary for the petitioner, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the order on that reasoning. The law stands well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article-227 of the Constitution of India is confined to grave procedural irregularities, causing serious prejudice. It is not every wrong order that calls for interference under Article-227 of the Constitution of India. If that were to be so, a suit could be stalled on any trivial ground by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)