IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.457 of 2009 SATYANARAYAN DEB @ SHAM NARAYAN LAL DEB, SON OF LATE BADRI LAL DEB, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KUPARI, P.S.-BANIGANJ, DISTRICT-ARARIA. …………………DEFENDANT/PETITIONER. Versus 1. JAI KUMAR YADAV, SON OF MANIK LAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PARMANANDPUR, P.S.- BANIGANJ, DISTRICT-ARARIA. ……………PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY IST SET. 2. SHANKAR LAL DEB. 3. UMESH LAL DEB. BOTH SONS OF LATE BADRI LAL DEB. 4. BACHANI DEVI. 5. BUDHANI DEVI BOTH DAUGHTERS OF LATE BADRI LAL DEB. O.P. NO. 2 TO 5 RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-KUPARI, P.S.-BANIGANJ, DISTRICT-ARARIA. …………………DEFENDANTS/O.P. 2ND SET. …………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2 23.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Araria in Title Suit No. 207 of 2000 by which the petition of the petitioner for permitting him to examine the disputed thumb impression by another hand-writing expert has been rejected by the court below. From the impugned order, it appears that earlier the plaintiffs had got the thumb impression examined through an expert and the same was produced in court and exhibited. The said expert was also examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendant did not cross-examine him and therefore, he was discharged. Thereafter, it appears that the defendants filed a petition to recall the said expert (PW11) and allow the defendant to cross- examine him but the said application was also rejected by the court 2 below by order dated 11.1.2007. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order dated 11.1.2007 attained finality since the same was not challenged by the defendant in any proceeding before any higher Court. Thereafter, the petition for examination of another hand-writing expert on his behalf was rejected by the court below on the ground that the defendant had not made out any case for examination of another hand-writing expert in the case. In the suit, the court below has noticed that the report of the hand-writing expert and his evidence in court is just another peace of evidence, which has to be considered by the court on merits. In the circumstances, I do not find that the court below has committed any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. As a result, I do not find any merit in the revision application and the application is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)