Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. These two applications are at the instance of the defendant and are directed against the orders dated March 15, 2011 and March 30, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, 6th Bench, Calcutta in SCC Suit No.436 of 2007. In C.O. No.983 of 2011, the defendant challenged the rejection of his application for appointment of a handwriting expert for examination of documents (rent receipts) already exhibited by a handwriting expert. While the said application is pending before this Hon’ble Court, by the order dated March 30, 2011, the learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit. So, the second application has been filed. So far as the application being C.O. No.1350 of 2011 is concerned, I find that this application is against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby decreeing the SCC Suit No.436 of 2007 on contest. The plaintiff got a decree for delivery of possession of the premises in suit by the order dated March 30, 2011. So, the impugned order dated March 30, 2011 is final and as such, no revision lies, but an appeal lies against the said order. Therefore, the application being C.O. No.1350 of 2011 is not maintainable and I have no other alternative but to record dismissal of the said misc. case. The said misc. case is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. However, it is recorded that the said application was filed on April 26, 2011 and is disposed of today (May 4, 2012). So far as the other case being C.O. No.983 of 2011 is concerned, I find that this application is against an interlocutory order in respect of the SCC Suit No.436 of 2007, whereby the applications filed by the defendant have been rejected with costs Rs.100/-holding that the applications have been filed for harassment of the plaintiff. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Laxminarayan Enterprises v. Laxminarayan Textile & ors. reported in AIR 2000 Karnataka 195 and thus, he submits that an application for filing material pleadings or adducing material evidence for just and proper decision of the dispute between the parties is permissible even at the stage when the matter is fixed for judgment. Since, the judgment has already been delivered in the instant case, this decision will not be applicable. Since, the judgment has already been delivered in the instant case, this decision will not be applicable. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has next referred to the decision of Sunil Chowdhury v. Arup Kumar Ghosh reported in 2006(1) CLJ (Cal) 582 and thus, he submits that where the reasons/opinions are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing doubt, the incorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. This decision will also not help of the petitioner because of the fact that the suit has already been disposed of. It may be noted herein that the petitioner has prayed for examination of the rent receipts by a handwriting expert, which have already been marked exhibit in the case. Since those documents have already marked exhibit, I think the matter of examination by a handwriting expert appears to be meaningless. The learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the matter accordingly. Since, the said ejectment suit had already been disposed of by the order dated March 30, 2011, I am of the view that the present application has become infructuous and no order needs to be passed thereon. Accordingly, this revisional application is also dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. (Prasenjit Mandal, J.) Later: Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he wants to take back the certified copy of the impugned order. He is permitted to do so provided he files one set of xerox copy of the same.