Civil Revision No.5486 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5486 of 2011 Date of Decision: 8.9.2011 Parsin Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Jagjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Gurjinder Singh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J .(Oral) During the pendency of the main suit, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for permission to send the disputed Will dated 25.10.1973 for comparison of signatures to the State Forensic Science Laboratory was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 30.8.2011 (Annexure P4). 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this context. 4. As is evident from the record that plaintiff has already examined Dr.Inderjit Singh Handwriting Expert, in order to substantiate her claim. Sequelly, defendant Nos.3 to 6 have also produced their handwriting expert in this regard. Now it was for the trial Court to decide the validity and genuineness or otherwise of the Will in question, on the basis of evidence on record. As both the parties Civil Revision No.5486 of 2011 -2- have already produced their handwriting experts, therefore, to me, no ground for sending the Will in dispute to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signatures is made out. 5. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner- plaintiff and has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant behalf. Such impugned order (Annexure P4), containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is hereby dismissed as such. 8.9.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE