JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 10.04.2012 whereby application moved by him for permission to examine a hand-writing expert for comparison of the thumb impression of Kartar Kaur on alleged Will dated 15.01.1988 with her standard thumb impression was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Will in question had been proved by the defendants by leading secondary evidence. It was very necessary in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner-plaintiff to rebut the said Will by examining the hand-writing expert. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Will in question was an unregistered document. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 4. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order, itself, reveals that the Will in question dated 15.01.1988 has been proved by defendant No.2 by leading secondary evidence. In this regard, plaintiff was required to be given an opportunity to rebut the said Will while leading his rebuttal evidence. By denying the plaintiff an opportunity to examine the hand-writing expert, he will suffer great prejudice. Trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for permission to examine a hand-writing expert has, thus, committed a patent error. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Consequently, application moved by the petitioner (Annexure P-4) for permission to examine hand-writing expert for comparison of the thumb impression of Kartar Kaur on disputed Will dated 15.01.1988 with her standard thumb impression on sale deed executed by her, is allowed.