D.S.Tewatia, J. - (1.) The trial court by its corder dated 6-1-1975 declined permission to the plaintiff to recall the Finger Print Expert for comparing the thumb impression of one Nathu Lal appearing on the will Exhibit D. 1 with that appearing on a sale-deed effected by the latter.
(2.) While disallowing the request it was mainly influenced by the fact that the suit which was already an old one was likely to become older, In my opinion that is hardly a ground, for one thing the plaintiff, who filed the suit for possession and partition, would be the last person to delay the decision of the case, and for another, the plaintiff moved the application only three days after the Finger Print Expert had failed in his attempt to compare the thumb-impression of' Nathu Lal appearing on the front portion of the will Exhibit D1 with that appearing on the back thereof on account of the thumb-impression on the bank of the said will Exhibit D. 1 not being clear. In a situation like this, it was 'incumbent on the Court to exercise its discretion to give another opportunity to the plaintiff to examine the Finger Print Expert, in case he had in his possession any other document, admittedly bearing thumb-impression of Nathu Lal. The trial Court, in my opinion, failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not allowing the plaintiff's prayer for resummoning of the Finger Expert.
(3.) In the result, I allow the revision petition, set aside the order at the trial Court and allow the application of the plaintiff moved before the trial Court. It is however, made clear that the the plaintiff will not be entitled to any other opportunity. The parties shall bear their own costs and they are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12-8-1975. Petition allowed.;