the petitioner in filing the said application. The learned single Judge also expressed the view that even without sending the said document to a handwriting expert, the Court can come to a conclusion by comparing the signatures on the documents available in the suit record. After passing the said order in the revision petition, the petitioner filed a review petition before the learned single Judge contending that in fact, the application for sending the unregistered sale deed to the handwriting expert was filed, when the defendants’ evidence was being taken up by the trial Court and not at the time of arguments as held by the learned single Judge. However, pending the review petition the suit itself was disposed of and the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Thereupon, the learned single Judge dismissed the review petition on the ground that it became infructuous. Now, in the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the said Court, the petitioner filed another application with similar prayer to send the unregistered document for comparison of the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures of the 3rd respondent, who allegedly executed the unregistered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The appellate Court holding that by virtue of the order passed by the learned single Judge in the revision petition and thereafter by the order dismissing the review petition, it has to be understood that the prayer was finally rejected and therefore it is not open for the petitioner to file the present application with the same prayer. The appellate Court also is of the view that the trial Court after considering the evidence of the witnesses examined by the petitioner to prove the unregistered sale deed, held that the petitioner failed to prove the execution of the unregistered sale deed and, therefore, it is not necessary to send the unregistered sale deed for comparison of the disputed and admitted signatures of the 3rd respondent.
