Civil Revision No.5860 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5860 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Rajbir ....Petitioner Versus Raj Rani and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 28.8.2010, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for getting thumb impression of Dhan Kaur, stands allowed. The learned trial Court in view of the dispute raised in the suit, recorded a positive finding that the evidence sought to be led by examining thumb impression of Dhan Kaur was necessary for just and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties and allowed the application. Impugned order was challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending, that the learned trial Court while allowing the application moved by the plaintiff did not notice the fact that on earlier occasion an expert was examined, therefore, the second expert could not be allowed to be examined to compare the thumb impression. Civil Revision No.5860 of 2010 -2- In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Prem Singh Vs. Sohan Singh, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 292, wherein this Court had laid down, that no second expert can be appointed on the request of the same party, after the report of an expert appointed earlier has come on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the face of it cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the expert earlier examined had not submitted any report as the signatures were incomparable. The exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court, therefore, cannot either be said to be illegal or arbitrary, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, specially when the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present case. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 13, 2010 R.S.