1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10245/2007 {Azizul Haq Versus The District Judge, Tonk & Others} Date of Order :: 20th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. R.K. Mathur for the petitioner Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Ranjan appears for the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 5th December, 2007 (Annexure-7) passed by the District Judge, Tonk, whereby the objection petition dated 5th December, 2007 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and permission to cross-examine an expert Raj Kumar from another expert was refused and another prayer to send Ex.-2 to another hand writing expert was also refused. So far as first prayer regarding cross-examination of Raj Kumar is concerned, the learned counsel for both the parties contended that he has already been cross- examined by one expert advocate, therefore, 2 this prayer has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued only in respect of Ex. 2 and contended that it may be sent to another hand writing expert or F.S.L. The learned reference court in its impugned order has observed that order sheet dated 9th October, 2007 shows that both the parties gave their consent to send Ex. 2 to hand writing expert and Raj Kumar Shotriya was appointed as hand writing expert. Subsequently matter was listed on 27th October, 2007 and objector Azizul Haq gave his consent for not examining any evidence in rebuttal on receipt of hand writing expert report, therefore, reference court held that earlier order was a consent order, therefore, the request to send Ex. 2 again to another hand writing expert cannot be accepted. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK