JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. In Original Suit No.253 of 2008 filed by the petitioner, the defendant-respondents moved an application for permission to examine an expert in respect of the signatures of the plaintiff on the Vakalatnama. The defendants were granted permission to examine the expert. However, it seems that the defendants did not avail the said opportunity and, therefore, by an order dated 29.9.2009, the trial court foreclosed the aforesaid opportunity granted to the defendants. The defendants, it seems, moved an application for recall of the order dated 29.9.2009. The same was allowed by the trial court by an order dated 30.3.2015. The petitioner claims to have filed a revision against the order dated 30.3.2015 and it is stated to be pending. In the meantime, the trial court on 21.7.2015, allowed the application for adjournment moved by the petitioner and fixed 31.8.2015. It further observed that since the expert had appeared in the suit and, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to adjourn the matter further, unless the petitioner succeeds in obtaining a stay order from the revisional court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Admittedly, in the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.3.2015, there is no stay in her favour. In such view of the matter, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 21.7.2015. 3. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.