THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 1018 of 2010 Order: The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in the original suit in O.S. No. 31 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Yellandu. Respondent No.1 died on 05.03.2008. The suit is being prosecuted by respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner herein is the first defendant and the third respondent herein is the second defendant in the said suit. The suit is filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and also seeking eviction of the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit. The suit schedule property is house bearing No.5-3-2, Civil Line, situated in New Bus Stand Area, Yellandu, Khammam. The suit was filed on 04.04.2005. After the death of respondent No.1, the second respondent, claiming that his father (first plaintiff) executed a Will dated 24.01.2005 and got it registered, filed the same and the petitioner herein is challenging the genuineness of the said Will. His main contention is that there is no reference about the Will dated 24.01.2005 in the suit filed on 04.04.2005. The main contention of the second respondent is that since the Will came into force after the death of his father on 05.03.2008, there is no need to refer about the Will in the suit filed on 04.04.2005. The petitioner herein filed the application in I.A. No. 265 of 2009 in O.S. No. 31 of 2005, under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, praying the Court to send the disputed Will to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures purported to have been signed by the deceased first plaintiff with the admitted signatures available in the Court records. However, that application has been dismissed by the impugned order mainly holding that the Court has power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare the signatures and since the evidence is not yet adduced there is no necessity to send the Will for comparison and that the petitioner will have opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses produced by the second plaintiff. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment reported in Murarilal v. State of M.P.[1], submitted that the opinion of the expert will aid the Court in coming to the correct conclusion. In para 12 of the judgment it was observed as follows. “The argument that the Court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh were cases where the Court itself compared the writings.” It appears that the expert opinion will always aid the Court in coming to a correct conclusion. Of course, where there is no expert opinion or where the parties have not sought the opinion of the expert, then the Court may examine and compare the signatures by itself under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Of course, it is for the second plaintiff to prove the execution of the Will by examining the attestors and adducing necessary evidence and the petitioner who is the second defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and disprove the contention of the second plaintiff. That does not mean that the opinion of the expert will not be helpful to the Court. When it is alleged that the signature of the first plaintiff is forged and the alleged Will is a fabricated one, it is always better if the opinion of the expert is sought. In the above circumstances, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, IA No.265 of 2009 in O.S. No.31 of 2005 stands allowed. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 24.03.2011 Nsr [1] AIR 1980 Supreme Court 531