M. S. Liberhan, J. - (1.) This revision petition arises out of an order permitting the plaintiffs to examine Shri K.S. Puri. Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, after taking the specimen thumb impressions of Bhagwan Kaur. The impugned order Ins been passed keeping in view the undisputed facts that the plaintiffs applied for examining the expert after taking the specimen thumb impressions of Bhagwan Kaur in Court. It is not disputed that on the specimen thumb impressions the Court recorded that the thumb impressions related to one Basant Kaur. The plaintiffs brought this error to the notice of the trial Court was instead of correcting the error which had crept in inadvertently by the Court itself allowed the plaintiff-petitioners to get the specimen thumb impressions of Bhagwan Kaur afresh and produce Shri K.S. Puri, the expert.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, impugns the order on the ground that the Court should have given a finding that the name of Basant Kaur had been wrongly written on the specimen thumb impressions and those specimen thumb impressions are of Bhagwan Kaur and since Shri K. S. Puri has already been examined he cannot be re-examined or recalled It is not the case which satisfies the conditions laid down by Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure under which permission to lead additional evidence can be granted only when the evidence was not previously known or it could not be produced in spite of due diligence. Herein it is not the case that previously the evidence was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff or he could not produce the same in spite of due diligence. 1 find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Undisputedly, an error has crept in on account of in advertence of the Court while taking the specimen thumb impressions. The specimen thumb impressions of Basant Kaur hive been taken instead of Bhagwan Kaur. Without expressing any opinion in this respect, I am of the view that vide the impugned order the Court has instead of correcting the name on the specimen thumb impressions, permitted the plaintiffs to take fresh thumb impressions of defendant No. 3 Bhagwan Kaur and examine the expert afresh. It may be an irregular order but the petitioners have failed to show any injustice, much less the substantial injustice, being suffered by them on account of the passing of the impugned order. In view of the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order can be set aside when if allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice or cause any irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Nothing has been pointed out how the impugned order occasioned in the failure of justice or caused any irreparable injury to the petitioners even if it is taken to be an order passed against the petitioners.
(3.) In view of my observations I find no ground to inter fere with the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 29th May, 1989 when the next date of hearing shall be fixed. Petition dismissed.;