' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 11-4- 2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sadiqabad whereby application brought by respondent for comparison for his thumb-impressions on pro note from finger print expert was accepted.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that Ishtiaq Ahmad, petitioner filed suit for recovery of Rs,25,000 against the respondent on the basis of pro note, dated 14-12-2002. He (respondent) filed written statement whereupon learned trial Court framed issues and adjourned the case for evidence of parties. On 17-3-2005 respondent/defendant filed application for comparison of his thumb impressions on pro note and after hearing the parties learned trail Court accepted his application Nide impugned order. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above petitioner had filed suit for recovery of Rs,25,000 against the respondent on the basis of pro note. The case of respondent is that he has not received disputed amount from petitioner. Also that pro note, dated 14-12-2002 is a forged document and the same does not bear his signatures or thumb impressions. He filed application for comparison of thumb impressions on pro note in question. I find that in the circumstances of the case learned trial Court has rightly accepted his application. Para. No.5 of order, dated 11-4-2005 reads as under:-- "After considering the above-mentioned ruling in the light of arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that authenticity of witnesses of the plaintiff has still to be discussed in the final judgment. No-doubt, he was not in need to get opinion of Expert as he has produced marginal witnesses andwriter but it is right of defendant who denied his thumb impressions to get comparison of those disputed thumb impressions with his admitted thumb-impressions. Under these circumstances, this application is accepted."
' It is well-reasoned order. Even otherwise as stated earlier the case of respondent is that pro note, dated 14-12-2002 does not bear his thumb impressions, therefore, his request for comparison is proper. So impugned order is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.