5.It is seen from the records that in Original Suit No.200 of 2005 a Handwriting Expert has been appointed and he has been supplied with the relevant documents through an Advocate Commissioner and he filed his report In Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009, it has been specifically prayed to collate the disputed signature as well as thumb impression with the admitted signature as well as thumb impression of the petitioner/plaintiff The main grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner is that the Handwriting Expert who has been appointed earlier failed to compare the disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression of the petitioner/plaintiff. Under the said circumstances, the revision petitioner can very well take suitable steps so as to utilise the service of the Handwriting Expert, who has been appointed earlier. Instead of taking proper steps, the revision petitioner has erroneously filed Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010 for identical reliefs. Since in Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009 already a Handwriting Expert has been appointed and he has been supplied with the relevant documents through an Advocate Commissioner, the present petition is totally unwarranted and if at all the revision petitioner is having grouse, he can take proper steps so as to utilise the service of the Handwriting Expert, who has been appointed earlier in Interlocutory Application No.29 of 2009. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of and altogether the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.818 of 2010 by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference.
