1. By order dated 13.08.2010, a learned Judge directed that C.R.P.Nos.1500 and 1572 of 2010 be placed before a Bench of two or more Judges for consideration. On 29.09.2010, the Division Bench that dealt with the matter opined that it should be considered by a Full Bench. That is how C.R.P.Nos.1500 and 1572 of 2010 along with connected C.R.P. Nos.4098 and 5008 of 2010 came to be placed before this Full Bench.

2. The operative portion of the reference order dated 13.08.2010 of the learned Judge reads as under:-

The conspectus of the precedent law as above would show that some of the learned Judges of this Court have taken a view that if there is long time gap between the admitted signature and disputed signature, no purpose would be served by referring the disputed handwriting/signature to handwriting expert. Some other learned Judges have taken a view that in view of scientific advances, the handwriting expert can compare the admitted and disputed signatures even if there is a long time gap between them. The inconsistency between the two line of cases would certainly create a dilemma for the Courts below. Of late, there is increasing number of suits for recovery of money based