JUDGMENT A. Talukdar, J. This court by an order dated 14.12.2000 disposed of C.R.R. 848 of 1999 on merit. Mr. Banerjee, learned lawyer appearing for the opposite party who is the applicant herein, has prayed for passing some miscellaneous directions with regard to early disposal of the proceeding which is pending before the learned trial court under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has submitted that notwithstanding the fact that this court has disposed of the main revisional application on merit, miscellaneous prayer for expeditious disposal will not come within the meaning of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mr. Rahaman, learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner, has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Singha Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 43 and submitted that the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of filing miscellaneous petition after the disposal of the main matter and issuance of fresh direction in such miscellaneous petition by the High Court are unwarranted and not referable to any statutory provision and in substance the abuse of the process of the court. Mr. Rahaman has submitted that after this court has disposed of the main matter, in view of the decision in Hari Singha Mann (supra), the present application for necessary miscellaneous directions filed by Mr. Banerjee's client is not maintainable. 3. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Banerjee, as any direction thereon in the main revisionl application will amount to infraction of the principle laid down in the decision of Hari Singha Mann (supra), and in my view, is also not in accordance with the provisions of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A court having passed a final order on merit cannot recall the same again for the purpose of any miscellaneous direction. Accordingly, this application being CRAN 1200 of2000 is dismissed. 14.12.2000 Mohinoor Rahaman, Hafizur Rahaman for the petitioner. 1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat in connection with Case No. M. No. 185 of 1986 thereby refusing the prayer of the petitioner filed on 21.12.1998 for examining Naadabi document by an handwriting expert. 14.12.2000 Mohinoor Rahaman, Hafizur Rahaman for the petitioner. 1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat in connection with Case No. M. No. 185 of 1986 thereby refusing the prayer of the petitioner filed on 21.12.1998 for examining Naadabi document by an handwriting expert. None appears on behalf of the opposite party in spite of service of notice. Let affidavit of service filed today be kept on record. 2. After hearing the submissions of Mr. Rahaman, learned lawyer for the petitioner and after going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was not justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner for examining the document by a handwriting expert in view of the fact that the said point goes to the very root of the matter. Although the court is always an expert of all experts, but yet in the fact situation I find that the learned Magistrate himself took up the burden of comparing the signature come to his finding that the signatures were not identical. 3. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has every right to rebut the case made out by the opposite party, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the said document to be examined by a handwriting expert. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat and direct that the petition dated 21.12.1998 be allowed by the learned Magistrate and document be examined by a handwriting expert and it is only after receiving the report of the said handwriting expert, the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. 4. This revisional application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Revisional application allowed.