Applications to reopen a case were rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary under procedural laws.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 17.06.2025 passed on applications filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the case which is posted for arguments, under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall PW.3 and under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC seeking permission to produce certain documents.

2. The suit is of the year 2010 and is for specific performance of contract. It is shocking that the specific performance is still languishing before the concerned Court, despite passage of 15 years.

3. A perusal at the order would indicate that the applications, plethora in numbers are being filed by the petitioners or by the respondents as the case would be, had delayed proceedings. Now at the time of arguments, the petitioners-plaintiffs come up with the subject applications seeking to reopen the case which is posted for arguments, recall of PW.3 and production of documents.

4. The concerned Court has rejected the applications of the petitioners. The reasons rendered for rejecting the applications so filed are as follows:

"6) Point No.1 and 2:- These two points are interconnected and with respect to the relief claimed, hence they have been dealt together. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for specific performance of the contract to enforce agreement of sale dated 17.12.2008. 1^st defendant has denied the execution of document as well as his signature. 1^st defendant has also produced the scientific examination report which is marked as Ex.D.36. C. Ashwathappa who has given the report by comparing the signatures is examined as DW.2. DW.2 has been cross examined by counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs now intends to produce the document to show that the C. Ashwathappa's report was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court and as such, his report cannot be considered. I have perused the copy of the Writ Petitions referred in application i.e., W.P.No.19062 of 2012 and W.P.No.8144 of 2021. It is clear from W.P.No.19062 of 2012 that C. Ashwathappa was appointed as court Commissioner for scientific investigation to compare disputed signature with admitted signature. The Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition has set aside the order passed in O.S.No.16195 of 2006 on the ground that there is a allegation against C. Ashwathappa that he demanded favours from the plaintiffs of that case and since the Writ Petitioners have apprehended bias towards the report of commissioner, the Hon'ble High court has allowed the Writ Petition and application filed by petitioner was allowed directing the Trial Court to appoint fresh commissioner. The Hon'ble High court has not held that C. Ashwathappa is not at all a handwriting expert and he cannot be appointed as a Court Commissioner. In this case, DW.2 C. Ashwathappa is not a Court Commissioner but a witness of defendant. He has given his evidence in respect of report prepared by him and which has been controverted by cross examination. Whether report of C. Ashwathappa is to be considered or not, it is based upon the evidence already adduced. Just because a fresh commissioner was appointed in W.P.No.19062 of 2012 this court cannot say that the evidence of DW.2 cannot be considered at all. The document i.e., order passed in W.P. No.19062 of 2012 cannot be considered as a relevant document to decide the issues involved in this suit. The questions were posed to, the witnesses to know whether he was trustworthy or not. Nowhere in the order Hon'ble High Court has held that C. Ashwathappa is not a trustworthy handwriting expert and his evidence cannot be considered at all. In another judgment which is referred by plaintiffs Hon'ble High Court has directed t