The main legal point established is that subsequent applications should not be allowed without proper grounds after an earlier application on the same matter has been dismissed, as it leads to unjustified delay in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 29.08.2018, whereby his application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the order dated 16.05.2018, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially an application was filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC, wherein prayer was made by him that the document in question i.e. agreement to sell dated 30.08.2011, did not bear his signature, and as such, the said signature of the respondent-defendant was required to be compared with other documents to prove that he had never put a signature on agreement to sell.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reply to the said application was filed by the petitioner and an objection was raised that while adducing evidence, the respondent-defendant, admitted in his first cross-examination that he had put his signature on the agreement and photo affixed on the agreement to sell, was also of the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stage of closing evidence of the defendant was also pointed out and defendant wanted to delay the disposal of the suit, and as such, the prayer was made to dismiss the said application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below vide order dated 30.01.2018, dismissed the application filed by the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 30.01.2018 was never put to challenge by the defendant- respondent and same became final.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently after dismissal of application of the respondent, again an application was filed by the respondent, wherein, he prayed before the Court that report of fingerprint expert was required to be obtained in order to prove the alleged signature put by the respondent on agreement to sell dated 30.08.2011. The defendant made prayer in the application that fingerprint expert may be permitted to take specimen signature of the respondent and after obtaining report of such expert, permission may be granted to produce the same before the Court and to lead the evidence to prove that defendant had never put his signature on the agreement to sell.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed reply to the said application and specifically pointed out that the evidence of the defendant was already concluded and defendant had admitted his signature during the cross- examination, while recording his evidence and application filed earlier was also dismissed, and as such, the petitioner prayed before the court below that such application was filed with ulterior motive to delay the entire proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below by order dated 16.05.2018, allowed the application of the respondent and recorded a finding that the opinion of the fingerprint expert by taking specimen signature, was an essential issue to be decided by the Court in the suit for specific performance, and as such, while allowing the application, the Court below, directed that fingerprint expert may take specimen signature from the Court file and his report may be placed before the Court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order dated 16.05.2018 was put to challenge by the petitioner by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14355/2018, and this Court on 09.08.2018, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition at the admission stage with liberty to file an application for recalling/reviewing the order dated 16.05.2018.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for recalling the order dated 16.05.2018, however, the said application has been dismissed by impugned order dated 29.08.2018, which is challenged before this Court.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following submi