1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.3.2014, whereby his applications filed under Order 13 rule 10 and Order 16 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure were rejected by the Court below.

2. The petitioner/defendant No.1 filed the said application under Order 13 rule 10 (Annexure P-6) by contending that between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, a partition had taken place on 27.10.1995. The factum of said partition was duly recorded by Assistant Settlement Officer on 27.10.1995. Plaintiff Dayaram put his thumb impression on the relevant document before the said Officer. However, during cross-examination the plaintiff denied about his thumb impression aforesaid. The petitioner accordingly prayed that original record be summoned from the concerned revenue Court. Another application under Order 16 rule 1 CPC is filed with a prayer to summon the handwriting expert to examine the thumb impression and signature etc. The petitioner stated that he is ready to pay the requisite charges for summoning the said expert. These applications are rejected by impugned order. The Court below rejected the said application by holding that whether it is thumb impression of the plaintiff or no