IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1383 of 2007 INDRADEO PRASAD & ANR Versus RADHEY PRASAD & ORS ----------- 2 4.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiffs, petitioners seems to be aggrieved by an order dated 10.5.2007 whereby and whereunder the Court below has rejected his prayer for sending all the disputed documents, containing some disputed signature for an opinion of the handwriting expert. Counsel for the plaintiffs, petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, that even though a disclosure about the said Yadast Batwara was made in the written statement by the defendant but as the document in question came to be filed only on 4.4.2006, the plaintiff- petitioner in fact had the first opportunity to look into that document only at that stage and, therefore, when application was filed on 17.4.2007 for sending the disputed signature, the same could not have been rejected on the ground of the same being belated. In the opinion, of this Court, such question with regard to exercise of discretion 2 by the Court below as with regard to obtaining an opinion of handwriting expert cannot be made a subject matter of a judicial review by this Court in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is so because the Court below has recorded a finding that the document does not require any opinion of an expert. If that be so the discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be substituted by an opinion of this Court. In view of the fact when the Court below has given detailed reasons for not sending the document in question for the opinion of the handwriting expert in the impugned order which do not suffer from any material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error, the same cannot be interfered by this Court. At this stage counsel for the petitioner with reference to some of the finding in the impugned order expresses a desire that now and when the Court below has stated in so many words that the Yadasta Batwara was genuine or authentic the whole issue has been prejudiced and infact decided. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners 3 would be gravely prejudiced on account of such observations made in the impugned order. Having considered the aforementioned apprehension of the petitioners this Court is of the opinion that whatever findings have been recorded in the impugned order was only made when the petitioners had sought to dispute the correctness of “Yadast Batwara”, but then in any event it is well settled that an interim order passed for disposal of interlocutory application will not be the conclusive by itself unless the Court below considers whole issue in fact in a compact manner in the light all other evidence on record apprehension of the petitioners is misconceived. With the aforementioned observation this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)