The filing of a review petition and the conduct of the parties in delaying the adjudication of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - REVIEW PET. 492/2019

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present review petition filed by the Review applicant/Respondent/Defendant No.2 (hereinafter 'Defendant No.2') under section 114 of the CPC read with Order 47 CPC seeks review of the order dated 11th September, 2019 passed by this Court. By the said order, the impugned order dated 8th January, 2019 in C.S. No.612619/2016 titled Dr. Rakesh Verma Vs. Vidya Sagar Bhagat passed by the ld. aDJ-03/West District/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter 'Trial Court') granting Defendant No.2 the liberty to lead the evidence of the handwriting expert thirty years after the suit was filed was set aside.

3. The review petition is premised on the order dated 11th November, 2019 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No. 26334-35 of 2019 titled Suresh Manasharamani v Rakesh Varma & anr. wherein, the Supreme Court observed as under:

'The principal argument of the petition is that the respondents moved the High Court at a belated stage and in particular only after the report of handwriting expert was received placed on record before the Trial Court. This aspect, presumably, was not brought to the notice of the High Court.

In that case, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the High Court by way of Review Petition, if so advised.

These Special Leave Petition are disposed of with liberty to the petition to approach the High Court by way of Review Petition. If the Review Petition is decided against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said decision as well as the impugned judgment by way of Special Leave petition before this Court.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.'

4. Mr. Rawal, ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.2 submits that owing to the liberty given by the Supreme Court, the present review petition has been preferred. He submits that the only point that he wishes to urge in the review is that the order dated 8th January, 2019 was challenged by the Petitioner/Plaintiff (hereinafter 'Plaintiff') before this Court in a belated manner. To support the said plea, he relies upon the orders dated 8th January, 2019, 30th January, 2019, 2nd February, 2019, 11th March, 2019 and 12th april, 2019 passed by the Trial Court wherein, according to him, the proceedings in the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence act, were passed by the trial court. He submits that the presence of the Plaintiff in person/through his Counsel is duly noted in the said orders. On the strength of these orders, it is his submission that the Plaintiff was fully aware of the application filed by the Defendant No.2 seeking permission to lead the evidence of an handwriting expert. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 8th January, 2019. The handwriting expert had also lifted the specimen signatures from the documents on 8th February, 2019 and the report of the handwriting expert was also filed on 12th april, 2019 with the Trial Court. However, in this process from 8th January, 2019 to 12th april 2019, no objection was ever raised by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff deliberately chose to challenge the original order of 8th January, 2019 only after the handwriting expert's report was taken on record by the Trial Court.

5. according to him, it is this belated challenge to the order dated 8th January, 2019 on Plaintiff's part which deserves to be considered by this Court which has not been considered by the Court while passing the order dated 11th September, 2019. He further submits that now that the handwriting expert's report is on record, since the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 are claiming rights through the same seller, Defendant No.1, the report of the handwriting expert ought to be taken on record in order to adjudicate the issues which have been raised in the suit.

6. Mr. Shankar Vaidyalingam, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant No.2 has misled the Sup