IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.974 of 2008 ANIRUDH PRASAD SINGH Versus BHUNESHWAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 2 9.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for not sending the document in question for an expert opinion to a suggested hand writing expert is vitiated by an apparent jurisdictional error inasmuch as when the Court felt the need of having such an opinion of the handwriting expert and had already sent the questioned documents to the Government Laboratory of Forensic Science, it ought to have directed for submission of such report by a private handwriting expert because the report of the Government Forensic Science Laboratory was neither the report which came specific nor sufficient for recording any finding with regard to the disputed document. In the opinion of this Court such approach of the Court below cannot be faulted because it was for the Court to be satisfied whether in the first place the report of the handwriting expert received by it was sufficient or not. In the event, the petitioner was not satisfied with the report of the handwriting expert, it was for him to lead his evidence and/or by also produce his own report from a handwriting expert but that having been not done the petitioner he could not compel the Court to have another opinion of the handwriting expert of his own choice. In the event the evidence of the petitioner has not yet been closed, this Court could give liberty to the petitioner to adduce his evidence in respect of disputed document through any handwriting expert but it is made clear that if the evidence of the petitioner has already been closed this order would not be used a license to reopen the proceedings. With the aforementioned observations this application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)