JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- Dismissal of application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC of the defendant, petitioner herein, for recalling of witness Javed Ali, respondent herein for his further cross-examination in order to seek further clarification from the witness, forms genesis of this revision petition. 2. Suit for specific performance of agreement dated 24.10.2007 in respect of the suit land and in the alternative for recovery of Rs.11,50,000/-, is pending adjudication before the lower court since 4.2.2009. After conclusion of evidence by the parties, the same is at the stage of final adjudication. 3. To sustain her claim, the petitioner-defendant wants to further cross-examine respondent-plaintiff Javed Ali, who had already been cross-examined by the petitioner-defendant at length. On denial of his signatures by plaintiff Javed Ali on document Ex.DW2/1 produced by the petitioner-defendant in her evidence, she had already examined handwriting expert who had proved his report to the effect that signatures and thumb impressions of respondent-plaintiff Javed Ali are there on agreement Ex.DW2/1 as also on agreement Ex.P1. 4. Merely because there is denial of his signatures by respondent plaintiff Javed Ali PW on document Ex.DW2/1, his further cross-examination by recalling him in the witness box is neither required nor warranted, particularly when this fact was in the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant. Probative value of document Ex.DW2/1, as has rightly been held by the lower court in the impugned order dated 12.8.2014, has to be examined after evaluating the evidence produced by the parties. Operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced as below: “This court has gone through the file and considered the submissions. From the perusal of file it is apparent that during the time, the witness/plaintiff was subjected to crossexamination, original of agreement which was subsequently proved in the testimony of expert witness examined by the defendant, had not been produced and in fact there are two statements one that of plaintiff denying signature and thumb impression that that of expert purporting to prove that the alleged agreement bears the signature and thumb impression of plaintiff, which of two statements is found to be true and correct, is a matter to be decided at the time of final arguments to be advanced by the parties and merely because statement of one witness is variance of statement of another witness examined by opposite party, it does not make out valid ground to recall a witness. Accordingly, this court finds no merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.” 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the impugned order is clear, well-written and has no infirmity therein, whereas this revision petition is nothing but a ruse to further delay and dilate the matter. 6. Sequelly, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order and affirming the same, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ----------------------