1. This revision petition is directed against the 'order of the trial Court whereby the application filed on behalf of the,defendant-petitioner for sending the receipt, Exhibit P. 1, to a third handwriting expert has been dismissed by the trial Court.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the revision petition is not maintainable in view ot the provisions of Section 115, of Civil P: C. (hereinafter called the Code), as the order passed, by the trial Court does not amount to a 'Case decided'. In support of this contention. reliance was placed on Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, AIR 1979 Punj and Har 76, wherein. it was held that where the trial Court has only rejected the application for the issurance of a commission of the ground that the issue could be proved by producing the relevant record and that demarcation was not necessary, it was clear that the Court did not decide any issue, nor did it adjudicate for the purposes of the suit some right no obligation of the parties in controversy. As such it was not a case decided within the meaning of the Explanation to section 115 of the Code, and the order was not revisable. Similarly, in the present case, in declining the application of the defendant for sending the receipt. Exhibit P. 1, to a third handwriting expert, the trial Court has not derided any right for obligation of the party, in controversy.
3. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs as not maintainable. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial Court on Nov., 17, 1983.
4. Petition dismissed.