JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner dated August 18, 1993 by which he has rejected the plaintiff-petitioners' application dated May 26, 1993. The facts, of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. In the year 1983, the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, it was dismissed by the trial court on December 1, 1990. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Bikaner. By his judgment dated November 27, 1992, the learned District Judge remanded the case to the trial court with directions that the trial court will afford an opportunity to the plaintiffs to take the photographs of the disputed documents for sending them to their hand-writing expert for his report, his report will be filed within three months, expert will then be produced, the defendant would also be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence of hand-writing expert so produced and, thereafter, to decide the suit in accordance with law. Against this order S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 1993 was filed by the plaintiffs in this Court. On the stay application of the plaintiff-appellants, the following order was passed on March 29, 1993:- "Hon'ble Shri Rajesh Balia, J. Mr. N.S. Acharya along with Mr. B.L. Purohit for the petitioner. Heard. Issues notice of the stay application. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the trial court is not furnishing the photocopy of the disputed document which is to be sent to the expert for obtaining the opinion in terms of the order passed by the appellate court on 27.11.1992. However, the learned counsel is not in a position to suite whether he has moved such an application for obtaining the photograph of disputed document after the order passed by the appellate court on 27.11.1992. However, the learned counsel is not in a position to suite whether he has moved such an application for obtaining the photograph of disputed document after the order passed by the appellate court on 27.11.1992. It is ordered that if any application has been made or is made by the appellant for furnishing him a certificate photograph of disputed document for the purpose of sending it to the expert for obtaining his opinion, the same may be delivered to the appellant within 3 days of making of such application and the period of three months for furnishing opinion of expert, allowed by the appellate court, to be counted from the date such photograph is delivered to the appellant. Meanwhile the cost awarded by the trial court for permitting the appellant to furnish additional evidence may be deposited in the court instead of paying to the defendant-respondent." 3. In compliance with the above quoted order of this Court, the plaintiffs moved an application and they were allowed to take the photostat copies of the disputed documents on May 25, 1993 (vide para No. 4 of the Revision petition). On May 26, 1993, the plaintiffs moved an application before the trial court to give them the thumb impressions obtained earlier by the court for sending the same to their hand-writing expert for his opinion. 4. The said appeal was decided on July 27, 1993 by the following order "Hon'ble Sh. R. Balia, J. Mr. B.L. Purohit for the petitioners. Mr. H.C. Jain for respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the grievance of the appellant has been redressed in terms, as a result of compliance of the order passed by this Court on 23.9.1993. However, he contends that this court should interfere in the order of cost awarded by the lower court but the awarding of cost in the discretion of the lower court. I see no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal is therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous." 5. By the impugned order dated August 18, 1993, the learned trial court dismissed the said application dated May 26, 1993 observing that the said application was moved after the expiry of three months, the appeal has been dismissed and no useful purpose would now be served in allowing the application. 6. By the impugned order dated August 18, 1993, the learned trial court dismissed the said application dated May 26, 1993 observing that the said application was moved after the expiry of three months, the appeal has been dismissed and no useful purpose would now be served in allowing the application. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners that the learned trial court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioners' application dated May 26, 1993. He further contended that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order ignoring the order of this Court dated March 29, 1993 by which the petitioners were entitled to submit the report of the hand-writing expert within three months from the date on which the photostat copies of the documents were handed over to them, the photostat copies of the disputed sale-deed were allowed to be taken by them on May 25, 1993 and the report of the hand-writing expert was to be produced by August 25, 1993 and the impugned order was passed prior to it i.e. on August 18, 1993. 7. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115, C.P.C. is very limited, the trial court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. He further contended that by its above quoted order dated March 29, 1993, this Court did not allow the plaintiffs to take the thumb impressions obtained earlier by the trial court for sending the same to their hand-writing expert for his opinion. He also contended that the plaintiffs had executed the impugned sale-deed in the year 1971 for consideration, they arc still in possession of the land sold by them through it and as such they are interested in delaying the suit as much as possible and for this reason they moved the said application on May 26, 1993 which could be moved much earlier. He lastly contended that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated before this Court on July 27, 1993 that the grievance of the appellants has been redressed in terms as a result of the compliance of the order passed by this Court on March 29, 1993. 8. He lastly contended that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated before this Court on July 27, 1993 that the grievance of the appellants has been redressed in terms as a result of the compliance of the order passed by this Court on March 29, 1993. 8. It is not in dispute that in compliance with the above quoted order dated March 29,1993 of this Court the photostat copies of the disputed sale-deed were taken and delivered to the plaintiffs on May 25, 1993. According to the above quoted order dated March 29, 1993, the period of three months for furnishing opinion of the handwriting expert was to expire on August 24, 1993. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on August 18, 1993 before the said period of three months expired. Th us the learned trial court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order on August 18, 1993. It could be passed only after August 24, 1993. 9. Now die question is what order should be passed in this revision petition. The suit is pending since the year 1983. The plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed land. The alleged sale-deed was executed in the year 1971. There is a great substance in the contention of the learned counsel for die defendant-non-petitioner that the plaintiffs are very much interested in delaying the disposal of the suit. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to why application for giving them the thumb impressions obtained earlier by the trial court for sending the same to the hand writing expert for opinion was moved on May 26, 1993. It could well be moved much before it. During the arguments also, the inordinate delay in moving this application was not explained. The learned District Judge has observed in para No. 8 of his judgment dated November 27, 1992 as follows VARNACULAR MATTER OMITTED 10. Rule 70(2), General Rules (Civil), 1952 ran as under:- "(2) The fact that a party is, through carelessness or negligence not ready to go on with a suit, is not in itself good cause or adjournment." The rules were replaced by General Rules (Civil), 1986 which came into force w.e.f. December 25,1986. Rule 70(2), General Rules (Civil), 1952 ran as under:- "(2) The fact that a party is, through carelessness or negligence not ready to go on with a suit, is not in itself good cause or adjournment." The rules were replaced by General Rules (Civil), 1986 which came into force w.e.f. December 25,1986. Proviso (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure enshrines that no adjournment shall be granted to a party except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party. 11. In view of these facts and circumstances, the application dated May 26, 1993 of the plaintiff-petitioners can be allowed in the interest of justice on onerous conditions and heavy costs. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed with costs. The trial court is directed to send directly the thumb impressions taken earlier for comparison with the disputed thumb impressions of the plaintiffs to their hand-writing expert through registered A.D. post, if plaintiffs take necessary steps for this purpose and remits Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the defendant through Money orders and files Money Order receipts in the trial court within a month from today. The plaintiffs will file the report of their Hand-Writing Expert within three months from today and will produce him before the trial court on the date fixed for his statement. They will make payment of Rs. 500/- to the defendant for each adjournment sought for producing him and not more than two adjournments will be granted for this purpose and the plaintiffs will close their evidence within six months from today. The trial court will decide the suit expeditiously.Revision/allowed accordingly. *******