JUDGMENT & ORDER : Having heard Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D.K. Biswas, the learned counsel for the respondent, at some length, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 165, Evidence Act read with Order 41, rule 27 CPC for adducing a document already on record. As there was dispute as to the signature appearing in the No Objection Certificate purportedly issued by the respondent, the trial court sent the document to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison. The Consultant-cum-Document Examiner, SFSL, Agartala, however, informed the District Judge, Dharmanagar that he could not express his definite opinion regarding the authorship of signature appearing in the No Objection Certificate (X-1) as the admitted signature of Subhash Ranjan Debbarma marked Y-1 on Vakalatnama was not sufficient for the comparison. He, therefore, required the specimen signatures of the said Subhash Ranjan Debbarma written by him a number of times on ¾ sheets along with a few more contemporaneous admitted signatures for further examination. Instead of complying with the requirements of the Consultant-cum-Examiner, the petitioner made suggestions, namely, A and B of his application dated 31-8-2016 before the court below. Suggestions are obviously at variance with the requirements of the Consultant. 3. The appellate court by the impugned order rejected the application by holding that no fruitful purpose would be served, and entertainment of his application would simply delay disposal of the appeal. I entirely agree with the view taken by the appellate court. No jurisdictional error is committed by the appellate court in rejecting the application. 4. Resultantly, this revision petition is totally devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. No costs.