IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1156 of 2006 ISHWAR BIND Versus SURSH BIND & ORS ----------- 3 8.12.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order that the Court below has committed a jurisdictional error by not sending the document in question for its comparison with the disputed document by a handwriting expert, is wholly misconceived inasmuch as it has to be born in mind that the party who bring a lis to the Court has to prove his facts by his own evidence. The Court cannot become an agency for collecting evidence on behalf of the parties. The submission of Mr. Ashutosh Jha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the reasons which have weighed upon the Court below in passing the impugned order are absolutely untenable. Such aspect has to be reviewed from an angle whether the Court below was bound to accept the prayer of the petitioner for sending a disputed document for its comparison through handwriting expert. Merely because the party would feel that the document in question should be examined by a handwriting expert through an agency of the Court will not compel the Court to do so unless the Court is satisfied of the requirement of such 2 evidence for the purpose of deciding the suit. The Court below in this regard has given reasons that there was no need for such opinion of the handwriting expert. Once the Court did not require such evidence and if the petitioner still felt the need of it, he had always the liberty to produce his own evidence instead of compelling the Court to do so. That being so, this Court is in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Amit Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and in fact his reliance placed by him on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Vessel M.V “Baltic Confidence” Vs. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2000 Calcutta 91 in fact is also apt and correct. In that view of the matter there would be no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. It is however clarified that it will always be open for the petitioner to adduce his own evidence as with regard to the disputed document through any private handwriting expert. Accordingly, this civil revision application being devoid of any merit is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)