IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that once a trial has concluded and a judgment is pending, no further petitions or evidence can be introduced, as this would infringe upon the judicial process and the rights of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsels for the parties on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by learned Subordinate Judge 3rd, Supaul in Title Suit No. 81 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge allowed the petition dated 07.04.2017 filed on behalf of defendant no.1/respondent 1st set for getting the signature of defendant no.2 over the sale deed dated 17.08.1990 examined by Forensic Science Laboratory when the matter was fixed for delivery of judgment.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial court and she filed Title Suit No. 81 of 2012 against the original respondent no.1, Most. Saraswati Devi and defendant 2nd set/respondent 2nd set seeking relief of declaration of title and ownership of the plaintiff on Schedule-2 land of the plaint apart from confirmation of title and possession over the suit land of Schedule-2. The plaintiff further sought their declaration of gift deed and certain sale deeds executed in favour of defendant no.3 as well as defendant no.1 void, illegal and not-binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the suit land on the basis of a sale deed executed by defendant no.2 and further submitted that defendant no.1 claimed part of the suit land by way of two sale deeds dated 07.04.1994 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 acting as guardian of his minor son, defendant no.3, who in turn got the suit land as gift vide a gift deed dated 25.11.1993 by the first wife Laxmi Devi of the grandfather of defendant no.3. The defendant no.1 appeared and contested the suit denying the claims made by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the suit proceeded ex parte against defendant nos. 2 and 3. After closure of evidence and full argument, the matter was fixed for judgment on 30.11.2016. Two days prior to the date fixed for delivery of judgment, on 28.11.2016, a petition was filed on behalf of the son of the defendant no.1 with a prayer to get the signature of defendant no.2 over Exhibit-4, i.e., sale deed dated 17.08.1990 verified and tallied with the signature of admitted document Exhibit-B at the cost of defendant. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder raising the ground of maintainability of the petition as it was filed by a person who was stranger to the suit. However, after the matter was adjourned for sometime, finally it was dismissed on 28.11.2016 as not pressed. Thereafter, on 06.04.2017, defendant no.1 filed an application with the same prayer. The plaintiff filed her rejoinder on 25.04.2017. The parties were heard and the learned trial court allowed the petition dated 07.04.2017 vide order dated 23.08.2017 and the said impugned order is under challenge before this Court in the present miscellaneous petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned trial court has been passed without application of judicial mind and the same is without jurisdiction. The learned trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that the suit was posted for pronouncement of judgment ignoring the settled law that there is no hiatus between completion of hearing and passing of the judgment and it is only for the convenience of the court that a future date is fixed for delivery of judgment. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 993, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure (in brief ‘the Code’) contemplates only two stages in the trial of a suit: (1) Where the hearing is adjourned or (2) where the hearing is completed. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that where the hearing is completed, the parties have no f