CRP 283/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY The defendant in Title Suit No.69/2004, being aggrieved by the order dated 21st June 2010 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia, has filed the present petiti on challenging the legality and validity of the said order. I have heard Mr GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/ defendant as well as Mr M Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that though the petitioner, wh o is the defendant in the aforesaid suit, filed an application praying for sendi ng the sale deed in question for re-examination by another handwriting expert af ter rejecting the opinion submitted by previous handwriting expert, the said app lication has been rejected by the learned court below on the ground that other s ignatures other than the signature marked as A/6 were also taken into considerat ion by the handwriting expert. It is further submitted that though the learned c ourt below at one stage observed that since the handwriting expert is yet to be examined touching the forensic examination it is not possible to arrive at a def initive conclusion regarding his opinion, but expressed the opinion relating to the admissibility of the opinion of handwriting expert thereby accepting the opi nion of the expert, even without examination of the handwriting expert and witho ut giving opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine the said witness. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supporting the or der dated 21st June 2010, submits that apart from A/6 signature, there were othe r admitted signatures of the plaintiff, being A1 to A5, sent to the handwriting expert together with the disputed signature in the sale deed and therefore the l earned court below has not committed any illegality in making observation as rec orded in the impugned order. It is further submitted that in any case the handwr iting expert has to be examined by the plaintiff in support of his opinion, whic h stage has not reached as yet. It appears from the order dated 21st June 2010 that the signature in the sale deed was directed to be examined by the handwriting expert and to give his opinion on the basis of certain other admitted signatures of the plaintiff mark ed as A1 to A6. The opinion has been furnished by the expert to the court. The s aid handwriting expert is yet to be examined by the plaintiff, at whose instance the signature in question document was sent for expert opinion. The defendant w ould get the opportunity to cross-examine the said handwriting expert relating t o her contention that non-comparison of the admitted signature(A6) renders the o pinion of the handwriting expert unacceptable. The learned court below has also observed in the impugned order that acceptance of opinion of the handwriting exp ert would be decided after examination of the expert. Having said so, the learne d court below ought not to have expressed his opinion relating to the acceptance of the opinion of the handwriting expert as has been done in the instant case. In view of the above, the opinion expressed by the learned court below t ouching the admissibility of handwriting expert’s opinion is set aside. The lear ned court below shall now decide the matter relating to the acceptance of opinio n of the handwriting expert, after examination of the handwriting expert. It is needless to say that it would be open to the learned court below to express its opinion at the time of disposal of the suit, and to send the signature A/6 for f urther examination by handwriting expert, if the occasion so arises. The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 8th November 2010 for taking orders from that court. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.