Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 22.08.2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam in I.A.No.609 of 2008 in O.S.No.174 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. A summarization and summation of the relevant facts, as stood exposited from the records could succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly, be set out thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the suit O.S.No.174 of 2003 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.609 of 2008 was filed seeking the Court to refer the disputed signature in the Will, with that of the admitted signature of the testator for expert opinion. The trial Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop her argument that no harm would be caused to the defendants, if the Court refers to the expert the disputed signature of the testator for expert opinion for comparing the same with the admitted signature and for reporting. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would detail and delineate, express and expatiate that earlier I.A.No.490 of 2005 was filed by the same petitioner for referring both the Left Thumb Impression as well as the signature of the testator for comparing the same with the admitted Left Thumb Impression and signature; but the trial Court was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner for referring the disputed signature in the Will for expert opinion but only referred the Left Thumb Impression for being compared. Accordingly, the expert examined the disputed left thumb impression with that of the admitted left thumb impression of the testator and furnished report that the impugned left thumb impression in the Will is not a genuine one; whereupon after a long lapse of five years, I.A.No.609 of 2008 was filed seeking the Court to refer the disputed signature also to the expert for being compared with the admitted signatures; the second application is barred by res judicata and accordingly, the lower Court was right in dismissing the application relating to which, no interference is warranted. 6. 6. In this factual matrix, I would like to observe that the petitioner having met with his waterloo earlier was not justified in once again filing the application I.A.No.609 of 2009 after a lapse of five years and that too, when the expert opinion relating to Left thumb impression is against the petitioner/plaintiff. There is nothing to indicate as to what prevented the revision petitioner to file a revision petition as against the rejection of the request to get the disputed signature referred to the expert for comparison earlier. 7. A bare perusal of the order would exemplify that the lower court au courant with all aspects of the matter, rejected the prayer. However, while dismissing this revision petition, I would like to observe that it is for the petitioner/plaintiff to file objection, if not already filed as against the expert opinion, whereupon, after cross examining the expert on his opinion in this regard, if there are sufficient materials and grounds for seeking second opinion from one other expert, the same could be resorted to by the petitioner/plaintiff. 8. With the above observation, this revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.