JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has come up upon application filed by the petitioner for early listing. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 03.11.2011 (Annex.-5) whereby application filed by the petitioner-defendant on 29.09.2011 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, read with Section 151, C.P.C. was rejected, in which, a prayer was made by the petitioner to send registered sale-deed to the civil expert for ascertaining the correctness of thumb impression upon the registered sale-deed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment reported in 2005(5) WLC 186, Mohd. Aslam v. Shambhu Singh , document can be sent to the handwriting expert again to ascertain the correctness of the thumb-impression. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no error in the order impugned because for the same allegation an FIR was filed at Police Station Sayara being FIR No.44/06, registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C., in which, regular investigation was conducted and the registry in question was sent to the hand-writing expert in which it is found that the registry in question bears thumb impression of the executor. On the basis of the investigation, it is found that no case of fraud is made out and, therefore, the police gave FR which is accepted by the criminal Court. Therefore, only to delay the proceedings of the suit the application was filed for sending the said document again to civil expert; but, the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that in the investigation conducted in the FIR no offence was found to be made out for committing fraud or forgery, therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application on the present case because in that case no FIR was filed nor any investigation was conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of the document. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 6. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 6. In my opinion, if in the criminal case regular investigation was conducted and document in question was sent for the purpose of ascertaining the authorship of the executor of the registry and if it is found that it bears the correct signature or thumb-impression, then, it cannot be said that such expert opinion should be ignored in the civil proceedings. In this view of the matter, I am in full agreement with the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45, Evidence Act for sending the registry in question to the civil expert to ascertain the authorship of the executor of the registry. Hence, no case is made out for interference. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******