JUDGMENT The present revision petition is against the order dated 2.8.1991 passed by 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Chhatarpur, in C. S. No.10-N90, rejecting the prayer of the applicant-wife to get the letter (Annex,ureA/1 to this revision petition) examined from the expert on the ground of delay. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the prayer should not have been rejected on the ground of delay. The cost should have been imposed for the same. This submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant. The lower Court has passed the detailed impugned order giving reasons to reject such application on account of negligence and delay on the part of the applicant. The case was listed for evidence on 7.3.91, 1.4.91, 23.4.91, 24.6.91 and 9.7.91. On none of these dates any prayer was made by the applicant to get the signatures of the non-applicant, contained in the letter Ex. P-l, examined by the experts. This latter was not filed earlier but was put to the non-applicant during his cross-examination only which he has denied. It is not known as to whether the other efforts were made by the applicant to prove this letter i.e. by putting the question to the non-applicant as to his admitted signatures on his Vakalatnama, written statement and other submitted documents. I am informed by the parties that the evidence of both the parties has been closed and only judgment is to be pronounced after hearing the arguments of the parties. In such a case there will be no justification for interference with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court which is well within its jurisdiction. No error of jurisdiction is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant if aggrieved, may raise the point in the regular appeal, if she so desires. In view of above, no interference in this revision petition is called for. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.