JUDGMENT 1. - Plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7/2/2009 passed by the learned trial judge in his Civil Suit No. 370/90 whereby and where under his application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act read with Order 16 Rule 6 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed, is before me challenging the same on various grounds. 2. It has not been disputed before me that on earlier occassion, plaintiff's application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has already been rejected on merits and the said order was also confirmed in appeal. Thereafter, another application filed for almost identical relief has also been rejected by the trial court on 11/4/2008. Now, this was yet another attempt by the plaintiff to delay the suit. 3. Apart from the above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, who are defendants in the suit, that the said "will", to which reference is being made by the petitioner, has no relevance- at all for deciding the suit as it does not deal with the disputed chowk for which the suit has been filed by the plaintiff. 4. Looking to the facts and features of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition. It is also to be mentioned here that the plaintiff-petitioner is taking undue adjournments in the matter and is not getting his suit decided on merits at an early date. The trial court, therefore, would endeavour to decide the suit on merits at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from today. 5. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******