ORDER : Vikash Jain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed "for quashing of order dated 20.01.2017 passed by Additional Munsif 1st, Araria passed in T.S. No. 247/2007 (Jai Prakash Pandit v. Sushila Devi) whereby and whereunder the petition dated 04.07.2015 of the plaintiff/petitioner has been rejected. And also for issuance of direction to the Court below concerned for exhibiting the c.c. of sale deed dated 12.09.1997 as produced by the petitioner/plaintiff." 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that the learned Court below ought not to have rejected her petition for exhibiting the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.09.1997 for the purpose of establishing genuineness of the thump impression of the original defendant No. 1 Bakai Pandit on the compromise petition dated 21.04.2008 said to have been entered between him and the plaintiff/petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and opposes the petition, submitting that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner. It is submitted that in any event, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.09.1997 sought to be exhibited would not come to the aid of the plaintiff/petitioner as the same would not contain the original thump impression of the original defendant Bakai Pandit. It is thus submitted that the plaintiff/petitioner is merely trying to linger the trial. 5. Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner has not disputed the submission of the respondents that the original thump impression of the deceased defendant Bakai Pandit would not be found on the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.09.1997. In this view of the matter therefore, such document would not come in aid to establish the genuineness of the signature of Bakai Pandit on the compromise petition. No fruitful purpose therefore would be served in exhibiting the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.09.1997 as sought on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner. 6. This Court finds no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.