JUDGMENT 1. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.K.Gowtham, learned counsel for the revision petitioners are heard. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 in the revision petition filed the suit in O.S.No.122 of 2006 against the revision petitioners ranking them as defendants 1 and 2, and praying for a declaration that they (the respondents herein are the absolute owners of the suit property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners (defendants) from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit property. 3. The revision petitioners resisted the suit projecting the sale deed obtained from one A.K.Khadija and based on their further contention that she in turn had purchased the property under a sale deed dated 11.09.1995 allegedly executed by the first respondent herein in favour of the said vendor of the revision petitioners. The genuineness of the said document was challenged by the respondents in the revision (plaintiffs). On an application filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs in the trial Court, the said document allegedly containing the thumb impression of the first respondent was sent to the Forensic Lab for comparison with the admitted thumb impression of the first respondent. However, the expert submitted an opinion that the thumb impression found in the said disputed document was not capable of being compared as it was smudged. 4. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge, based on the other evidence adduced in the case, chose to allow the suit and grant the reliefs as prayed for by the respondents herein by judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17.10.2012. As against the decree of the trial Court, the revision petitioners have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2012 on the file of the lower appellate Court, namely sub-court Sathyamangalam. The said appeal is still pending. 5. Pending disposal of the appeal, the revision petitioners filed an application I.A.No.87 of 2013 for referring the above said document again to a finger print expert for opinion. When the qualified expert, who is also an expert in the Government Forensic Lab, has already opined that the thumb impressions found in the document were not capable of being compared as they were smudged, no useful purpose will be served by referring it to another expert once again. When the qualified expert, who is also an expert in the Government Forensic Lab, has already opined that the thumb impressions found in the document were not capable of being compared as they were smudged, no useful purpose will be served by referring it to another expert once again. Furthermore, if at all the revision petitioners were not satisfied with the opinion given by the expert when the document was referred to him by the trial Court, the revision petitioners could have engaged a private expert of their choice, got the document examined by such expert and adduced evidence through such expert. The revision petitioners have not chosen to do so. Having failed to do it in the trial court, they have chosen to file the above said I.A.No.87 of 2013 as a second attempt to send the documents to an expert which was rightly viewed by the learned appellate Judge as an attempt to protract the case. The learned lower appellate Judge has correctly dismissed the said petition and hence the order of the lower appellate Judge dismissing the said application cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power of revision either under Section 115 of CPC or using its power of superintendence over the Subordinate Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition does not even merit admission and the same deserves dismissal at the threshold. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.