ORDER : This writ petition has been field for quashing the order dated 15.2.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 74 of 2002 by learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Deoghar rejecting the petitioner's application under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC. 2. It appears that this suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner claiming preferential right to purchase the share of the defendant 4th party and for directing the defendants 1st, 2nd and 3rd parties to re-transfer the properties purchased by them from the defendant 4th party, in favour of the plaintiffs and for consequential reliefs. The evidence of the parties were closed on 21.4.2009. Thereafter a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 23.7.2009 for calling for the original records of Title Suit No. 85 of 1995 from the court of Subordinate Judge-III, Deoghar for proving the certified copy of the Amin Commissioner's report along with a sketch map dated 23.12.2002 submitted in that suit. It may be noted that nothing was said by the petitioner in that petition as to how the said report was material to the present suit. However the said petition was rejected by the learned court below on 17.11.2009 mainly on the ground that after closure of evidence the case was fixed for argument from 28.4.2009; and that the certified copy in question was obtained by the petitioner as far back as on 20.4.2003, but he could not show anything why it was included in the list of documents filed after a several years i.e. on 18.8.2009. It was further observed that if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted, the evidences may be re-opened which will prejudice the other side. 3. Again a petition was filed with similar prayer on 8.1.2010 saying generally that the Amin Commissioner's report was necessary to be proved for just and proper disposal of the suit without stating anything further as to why and how it was material for the just decision of the case. By the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on the ground that similar prayer was rejected earlier. 4. Admittedly, the earlier rejection order dated 17.11.2009 was not challenged by the petitioner and it became final. 5. The submissions of Mr. Deo is that as the provision of law was not mentioned in the earlier petition, the second petition was filed. This submission is wholly unacceptable. 4. Admittedly, the earlier rejection order dated 17.11.2009 was not challenged by the petitioner and it became final. 5. The submissions of Mr. Deo is that as the provision of law was not mentioned in the earlier petition, the second petition was filed. This submission is wholly unacceptable. The earlier rejection was not on the ground that the provision of law was not mentioned. Relying on certain judgments, he submitted that the delay can be condoned on payment of costs. In the said cases, the position was different, inasmuch as the party in those cases moved this Court against the order rejecting their prayer, whereas in the present case even after rejection of prayer of the petitioner earlier, another petition was filed by the petitioner with similar prayer which has rightly been rejected. The litigants cannot be allowed to go on filing petition, even if similarly prayer was rejected earlier. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs. Petition dismissed.