“ Further it is pertinent to mention that after the evidence on behalf of the both sides was closed on 04.12.2008 the matter was posted for arguments to 12.12.2008 and from 12.12.2008 to 19.01.2009 and from 19.01.2009 to 22.01.2009. On 22.01.2009 the petitioner herein filed the petition I.A. 194 of 2009 reopening of the evidence and to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further crossexamination. But the said petition was dismissed after hearing both sides. Even at that stage also, the petitioner did not think of filing a petition to examine the attestors. Again the matter has been adjourned from time to time after disposal of I.A.No. 194 of 2009 on 26.03.2009 for arguments. Every time the counsel for the petitioner reported not ready for advancing arguments in spite of granting several adjournments. In stead of advancing arguments, the present petition is filed to reopen the case to examine the witness. Thus, I found that there are no bona fides in the contention of the petitioner and having allowed the matter to adjourn for several occasions for advancing arguments. As already pointed out, there are three attestors for the said document, he could have examined any of the attestors when the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was taken place. The present petition is filed after belated stage, that too after having availing several adjournments and opportunities. Thus, from the above said circumstances, I hold that the petition has no merits and liable to be dismissed.”
