1. The suit, out of which this Civil Revision Petition has arisen, is for money due under a Yadasthu (hand-note) by which the defendant is said to have acknowledged a loan of Rs. 19,000/- odd from the plaintiff. The yadasthu is said to be written by the defendant himself; but he denied the same. On the plaintiff's application it was sent to a calligraphic expert at Delhi for his opinion; and his report came to court on January 24, 1961. On February 19, 1961, the defendant applied for the Yadasthu being sent to another expert at Madras for his opinion. This was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that once an expert's opinion is come in the case, another should not be called unless and until the court has found the first opinion unacceptable. The objection was over-ruled by the trial court; and the plaintiff has come up in revision against that order.

2. The contention is that an expert in handwriting or finger-prints should be treated the same way as a commissioner deputed to make a local inspection; and as a second report from a new commissioner would not be called unless and until the report of the first commissioner is rejected as unreliable, the same principle