JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 24903-C-II of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : 1. Plaintiff Narinder Pal Sharma, aggrieved by order dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure P-8) passed by the trial court, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the said order. 2. While the suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence and final arguments before the trial court, plaintiff moved application (Annexure P-6) for requiring the defendant-respondent to give his specimen signatures and writing, as the same were required for comparison with his alleged signatures and writing existing in employees’ register maintained by the plaintiff. 3. Defendant-respondent, by filing reply (Annexure P-7), opposed the said application. 4. Learned trial court, by way of impugned order (Annexure P-8), dismissed the plaintiff’s application (Annexure P-6). Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition to assail the said order. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. In the suit, plaintiff-petitioner has alleged that defendant-respondent was his employee in the demised shop and remained employed with the plaintiff till 15.03.2004 and thereafter, the defendant, on 27.03.2004, took possession of the disputed shop illegally and forcibly by breaking open the locks of the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff has filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for possession of the disputed shop. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that counsel for the plaintiff, vide statement dated 03.06.2010 (Annexure P-4) made in the trial court, stated that he wanted to examine the document expert to prove signatures of the defendant in employees’ register of the plaintiff and accordingly, sought adjournment for the same. However, the said request was declined by the trial court vide order dated 03.06.2010 (Annexure P-5) observing that vide order dated 21.08.2008, last opportunity had been granted to the plaintiff, but in spite thereof, he had been granted 15 more opportunities, and therefore, further adjournment for examining document expert was declined and evidence of the plaintiff was closed by court order. The said order was not challenged by the plaintiff. Consequently, application (Annexure P-6) dated 17.08.2012, moved more than two years after the order Annexure P-5 was passed and even after defendant had closed his evidence, could not be allowed so as to undo the order Annexure P-5. The said order was not challenged by the plaintiff. Consequently, application (Annexure P-6) dated 17.08.2012, moved more than two years after the order Annexure P-5 was passed and even after defendant had closed his evidence, could not be allowed so as to undo the order Annexure P-5. The plaintiff, at the stage of rebuttal evidence, had no right to examine document expert to prove alleged signatures of the defendant on employees’ register. The plaintiff very well knew that he had to examine the expert in his affirmative evidence and accordingly made request vide statement Annexure P-4, which was declined vide order Annexure P-5. Even then, the plaintiff remained silent for more than two years. In rebuttal evidence, the plaintiff has no right to examine the document expert, who could be examined by the plaintiff in affirmative evidence only. Consequently, judgment in the case of Kashmir Kaur vs. Bachan Kaur reported as 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 133, cited by counsel for the petitioner, has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. Even otherwise, when even after last opportunity, the plaintiff was granted 15 opportunities, the question of granting any further opportunity to the plaintiff for his evidence would not arise. It may also be added that in application (Annexure P-6), the plaintiff simply sought direction to the defendant to give his specimen signatures and writing, but did not even seek permission to examine any document expert, nor sought permission for additional evidence. The plaintiff rather made a very vague application and very vague prayer therein. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the application Annexure P-6 moved by the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is sans any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------