JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Barmer, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking direction for expert report has been dismissed. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking expert opinion on the thumb impression on the gift deed, which is subject matter of the suit. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, the application was allowed by the trial court on 5.3.2013 and an opinion dated 4.5.2013 of one Mr. R.K. Thakur said to be a finger print expert was produced before the trial court on 31.5.2013. The said Mr. R.K.Thakur opined that the thumb impressions on the gift deed were different from that of the plaintiff which were obtained in the Court on 16.4.2013. 4. An application dated 26.7.2013 was filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, inter-alia, indicating several grounds seeking to discredit the report given by said Mr. R.K. Thakur and relying on the averments contained in the plaint and sought appointment of another finger print expert Dr. Iqbal Ahmed Usta. The application was opposed by the plaintiff in the trial court. After hearing the parties the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the hand-writing / finger print expert was appointed with the consent of the defendant and the issues which have been raised in the application seeking to discredit the report submitted by the said expert, it would be open for the petitioner to cross-examine the said hand-writing expert if and when he is produced for proving the said report and consequently, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from a bare perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff has admitted thumb impression on the gift deed, however, has taken a plea that the said document was got executed under wrong impression and therefore, the entire action on his part in getting a finger print expert's report denying the signatures is to get out of the said admission in the plaint. 6. Attention was also drawn to examination-in-chief, whereby plea contrary to the averments contained in the plaint have been raised. 6. Attention was also drawn to examination-in-chief, whereby plea contrary to the averments contained in the plaint have been raised. It was further submitted that the report submitted by the finger print expert, was at the instance of the plaintiff himself and the same has been produced by him and therefore, the same cannot be relied on and therefore, the trial court should have allowed appointment of another hand-writing / finger print expert to examine the documents at the instance of the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The entire submissions revolves around the credibility of the report submitted by the hand-writing / finger print expert and the conduct of the plaintiff based on the averments contained in the plaint, it would be for the petitioner, as observed by the trial court, to discredit the said report and / or the conduct of the plaintiff by way of cross-examination and submissions before the Court. The said aspects seeking to discredit the report and / or the conduct of the plaintiff cannot entitle the petitioner to seek appointment of another handwriting / finger print expert. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to produce a report at his own instance. If permissible under law, it would be open for the petitioner to do so. 10. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******