Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed a suit along with her father for the cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the defendants on the ground that the father had not executed the said sale deed. In order to prove the same, expert evidence had been produced by the plaintiffs but the same could not be proved as the then expert died during the pendency of the suit itself. It is alleged that in the year 2009 another oral request was made for bringing fresh expert evidence which could not be expedited on account of non-availability of documents from the Sub-Registrar Office. 2. Learned counsel submits that the documents have been made available only on 4th of September, 2012 and therefore there was no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner to lead fresh expert evidence. 3. The said opportunity of the petitioner has been denied by the impugned order dated 21.9.2012 on the ground that the suit is of 1981 and there are directions by the High Court to dispose of the same expeditiously. A revision filed against the same has also been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. 4. I Have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shachindra Mishra for the respondents who contends that this Court may not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in refusing to allow the petitioner to lead expert evidence. The delay has not been explained and the plaintiff's attitude in not diligently approaching the court by moving a proper application does not entitle the plaintiff petitioner for any relief from this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the suit is for cancellation of a sale deed on the ground that it has not been executed by the father of the petitioner who was also a plaintiff in the suit and has died during the pendency thereof. In such a situation, the expert evidence would be a necessary exercise for the purpose of ascertaining the signatures of the father of the plaintiff. The expert evidence had been led earlier but on account of death of the expert this contingency has arisen and the plaintiff has now made efforts for producing the expert evidence at her cost. 6. In such a situation, the expert evidence would be a necessary exercise for the purpose of ascertaining the signatures of the father of the plaintiff. The expert evidence had been led earlier but on account of death of the expert this contingency has arisen and the plaintiff has now made efforts for producing the expert evidence at her cost. 6. Nonetheless the speed with which this prayer has been made and taken three years, the matter should not be delayed any further and the plaintiff has caused some delay in the matter. 7. Accordingly, in order to prevent any miscarriage of justice and to do complete justice between the parties, I find it necessary that the plaintiff should be permitted to lead her expert evidence within a specified period of time and accordingly it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to lead expert evidence for which a maximum time of two months is provided to the petitioner plaintiff on payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the defendant respondents. The cost shall be paid before the court below and in the event cost is not paid, the opportunity granted by this court to lead expert evidence within two months shall stand dissolved. 8. In view of the aforesaid directions, the orders dated 21.9.2012 and 20.11.2012 are set aside. 9. The trial court is further directed to proceed with the suit on day-today basis after the evidence is completed and cross-examination is allowed in respect of the said expert and dispose of the matter preferably within six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the trial court. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. _____________