JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Bhiwani, vide which the prayer of the petitioner for recording the statement of fingerprint and handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence has been declined.

2. A perusal of the order dated 06.03.2025 would show that the present petitioner had filed an application dated 18.09.2019 for taking specimen handwriting of defendant no.2-Gauri Shankar and vide order dated 18.09.2019, the trial Court had observed that the said application would be taken into consideration at the stage of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. It had further been observed that several effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to lead his evidence but the plaintiff-petitioner did not opt to press the application for deputing the fingerprint and handwriting expert and on 09.05.2023, the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed by order. It had further been observed that the order dated 09.05.2023 was challenged by filing Civil Revision before the High Court and the High Court had granted opportunity to cross-examine four witnesses of the plaintiff-petitioner i.e., PW-1 to PW-4 vide order dated 12.07.2023 but the present petitioner did not pray in the said revision petition that the application for taking specimen signature of defendant no.2-Gauri Shankar was pending and that he wanted to adduce evidence of the said witness and that the said liberty be granted. It had also been observed that thereafter at the stage of rebuttal evidence, the petitioner opted to adduce the evidence of handwriting expert by pressing the abovesaid application dated 18.09.2019 for appointment of fingerprint and handwriting expert for taking specimen signatures of defendant no.2-Gauri Shankar and the said application was dismissed on 17.12.2024. It had further been observed that the petitioner had moved the present application at the stage of rebuttal evidence for recording the statement of fingerprint and handwriting expert and indirectly the same prayer, as was sought in the application dated 18.09.2019 and had been declined on 17.12.2024, was made by the plaintiff-petitioner and that since the plaintiff-petitioner had to adduce the said evidence at the stage of his evidence by way of affirmative evidence, thus, the same could not be allowed at the stage of rebuttal evidence. The factual observations made in the impugned order have not been disputed before this Court.

3. Neither the order dated 17.12.2024 nor the application dated 18.09.2019 has been annexed along with the present revision petition. It is not disputed before this court that an earlier application dated 18.09.2019 for the similar relief was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2024 and thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to re-agitate the same issue / prayer again and again during the course of the same proceedings / suit. Moreover, after the closure of the evidence of the petitioner vide order dated 09.05.2023, the petitioner had filed CR-3346-2023 in which on 12.07.2023, the following order was passed:-

'1. Prayer in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as - Trial Court).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that plaintiffs -witnesses Le. PW-1 to PW-4 had already been partly examined as their examination-in-chief -was recorded and on the request of counsel for the defendants, the cross-examination of the said witnesses was deferred. The case was adjourned to 16.01.2023. On the said date, witnesses of the plaintiff' could not come present and the matter was adjourned to 09.05.2023. Again on the said date, the aforesaid wit