IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.255 of 2008 Ramadhar Singh son of late Raghu Raj Singh Resident of village Rukandi, P.S. Goh, District Aurangabad. ……Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus Raj Mangal Singh son of late Kishun Singh Resident of village Rukandi, P.S.Goh, District Aurangabad, at present residing at Block ‘O’ 595 Alipore, Calcutta 53 (West Bengal). ………Defendant-Opposite party. For the petitioner : M/s V. Nath and Mrigendra Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite party : None. ----------- 04/ 11.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 08.01.2008 by which learned Subordinate Judge-III, Aurangabad rejected his application for getting the signature on the alleged deed of agreement for sale examined by a third government expert preferably at his cost in Title Suit No.144 of 1999 (136/2006). The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner against the sole defendant-opposite party for specific performance of contract with respect to the suit land vide agreement for sale deed dated 09.04.1999. The defendant-opposite party contested the suit and denied the execution of any such agreement, whereafter issues were framed and hearing of the suit started. It further transpires that seeing the controversy, both the parties got the signature on the said agreement for sale examined by their experts and the reports of both the experts were 2 contradictory supporting the claim of the party which got it examined. So in view of the conflict between the opinions in the two reports which were contradictory to each other, the plaintiff- petitioner filed an application before the learned court below on 02.01.2008 for getting the signature on the said deed examined by government expert at his cost. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 08.01.2008 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below, but it is quite apparent that two opinions on the respective reports of the parties are before the trial court which is quite competent to decide which of the report is correct. Furthermore the court itself is expert of experts and has rightly held in the impugned order that both the reports will be considered along with other evidence at the time of final disposal of the suit. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )