ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. The petitioner has called into question the common order, dated 28-6-2016 (Annexure-G) passed by the Court of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on I.A. Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 16 in O.S. No. 6773 of 2008. 2. The respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment, damages, etc., against the petitioner. In the said suit proceedings, the petitioner-defendant filed I.A. No. 10 for reopening the case, I.A. No. 11 for sending certain documents to Forensic Laboratory or any other Government Laboratory for comparing the plaintiffs disputed signature with the admitted signature, I.A. No. 12 for receiving certain documents and I.A. No. 16 for refund of the Court fee paid on counter-claim. 3. Smt. M. Jyothi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the that I.A. Nos. 10 and 12 were filed, as certain documents were not in the possession of the petitioner. On obtaining them from the criminal proceedings, they are sought to be produced in the suit proceedings. 4. The learned Counsel submits the that I.A. No. 11 is filed seeking comparison of the plaintiff's disputed signature with the admitted signature to any Government agency. She submits the that report of the Governmental agency would have greater evidentiary value. 5. The learned Counsel's submission on the order on LA. No. 16 is the that petitioner's counter-claim as such is not rejected, what is rejected is only the petitioner's LA. for advancing the counter-claim. She submits the that Court fee paid on the counter-claim ought to have been refunded by the Court in exercise of the inherent power conferred upon it under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In support of her submissions, she relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raijaddi Shaikh and Others v. Sarjan Biswas and Others, AIR 1935 Cal. 706; Vishnuprasad Narandas Modi v. Narandas Mohanlal Modi, AIR 1950 Bom. 4 and Deo Nandan Chouhan v. Chulli Nunia, AIR 1961 Tri. 22. 6. Sri Anil Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for Sri Shanmukhappa for the respondents submits the that affidavits filed in support of I.A. Nos. 10 and 12 do not contain any material particulars. He submits that even in the written statement, there is no reference to the documents sought to be produced with the said I.As. 7. 22. 6. Sri Anil Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for Sri Shanmukhappa for the respondents submits the that affidavits filed in support of I.A. Nos. 10 and 12 do not contain any material particulars. He submits that even in the written statement, there is no reference to the documents sought to be produced with the said I.As. 7. He submits the that suit for ejectment is filed in the year 2008. When the matter was set down for arguments on the main matter in 2014, the I.As. in question are pressed only to protract the proceedings. He submits the that petitioner has also filed objections to the Forensic Science Laboratory report. He submits that if the petitioner had any objection to the matter being referred to a private agency, she ought to have raised the objection then and there itself. He further submits that when the matter was referred to a private agency, the petitioner had not expressed any reservation or apprehensions. 8. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. I do not see any reason in the petitioner's affidavits as to why I.A. Nos. 10 and 12 are to be allowed. The affidavits accompanying the said I.As. only state the petitioner and his Advocate could not be able to produce the documents. The averments in the third paragraph of the affidavit are also extremely vague. The petitioner has not stated from which criminal proceedings, the documents are obtained and when they are obtained. 9. The suit itself is of the vintage 2008. In the eighth year also, it has not seen the light of the day. The filing of I.As. such as I.A. Nos. 10 and 12 are rightly dismissed by the Court. 10. Now let me examine the Court's order on I.A. No. 11. It was open to the petitioner to seek the engagement of a Governmental agency for the purpose of comparing the disputed signature with the admitted signature and for filing a report thereon. It ought to have been done at the threshold itself. The petitioner has accepted the entrustment of the matter to a private agency. When its report has gone against the interest of the petitioner, the objection is raised as some kind of afterthought. I am therefore not aside the Trial Court's order on I.A. No. 11. 11. It ought to have been done at the threshold itself. The petitioner has accepted the entrustment of the matter to a private agency. When its report has gone against the interest of the petitioner, the objection is raised as some kind of afterthought. I am therefore not aside the Trial Court's order on I.A. No. 11. 11. Lastly I am left with the examination of the Trial Court's order on LA. No. 16. It is the specific case of the petitioner the that counter-claim as such is not rejected; what is rejected is only the I.A. for advancing the counter-claim. But the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 16 does not whisper under what provision of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 or the Rules framed thereunder, she is entitled to the refund of Court fee. In my considered view, the matter on the I.A. for the refund of the Court fee requires reconsideration by the Court. I therefore set aside that part of the impugned order, which pertains to I.A. No. 16. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A. No. 16. The Trial Court shall hear the petitioner, the respondents and also put the Government Pleader on notice, as the issue has financial implications for the Government. 12. It is made clear the that petitioner shall not seek adjournment to address the arguments on the main matter on the ground that I.A. No. 16 is ordered to be reconsidered. The reconsideration of I.A. No. 16 can be either before the conclusion of the arguments or it can be considered along with the main matter or in any way the that Trial Court deems fit in exercise of its discretion. 13. W.P. Nos. 39783 to 39785 of 2016 are dismissed. W.P. No. 39786 of 2016 is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.