( 1 ) THE Court : The husband/petitioner filled Matrimonial Suit No. 47 of 1992 in the 4th Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Alipore, South, 24-Parganas, against the wife/caveator/opposite party for a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the same was decreed ex-pane on 19th January, 1993.

( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the wife/caveator/opposite party filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure together with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parle decreed on condonation of delay, alleging inter alia, that no summons of the suit was served upon her and the ex-parte decree was obtained by the husband/petitioner by suppression of summons and by forging the signatures of the wife/caveator/opposite party on the service return of summons and also on the acknowledgement card and she had no previous knowledge of the suit prior to 29th1 April. 1993 and 30th April, 1993, and the same gave rise to Misc. Case No. 7 of 1993.

( 3 ) IN the said Misc. Case, the wife/opposite party filed an application for appointment of a handwriting expert for comparing and/or examining the alleged signatures of the wife/opposite party on the service return of summons and on the acknowledgement card, with her admitted signatures appearing on the vakalatnama and the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure or with any of her admitted signatures. The said application was opposed by the husband/petitioner by filling written objection alleging inter alia, that summons of the suit were duly served upon the wife and instead of appointing a handwriting expert, the court could itself compare the signature appearing on the acknowledgement card and the service return of summons with the admitted signatures of the wife/opposite party, under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. During cross examination of the wife, as per the request of the learned Advocate of the husband/petitioner, the wife's signatures were taken both in Bengali and in English in open Court for the purpose of comparing with the alleged signatures of the wife appearing on the acknowledgement card and the service return of the summons.

( 4 ) THE learned judge after comparing the admitted signatures of the wife taken in open court with the alleged signatures on the acknowledgement card and the service return, came to a finding that the alleged signatures were vitiated by fraud and the wife had actual knowledge of the ex-parte decree in the third week of April, 1993, and the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was filed in time, and by his Order No. 33 dated 13th July, 1994 allowed the said Misc. Case by setting aside the ex-parte decree and restoring the Matrimonial Suit to Its original file and number. Against the said order of the learned judge, the husband/petitioner has filed the present revisional application in this Court.

( 5 ) MR. Shyama Prasanna Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the husband/petitioner, contends inter alia, that instead of examining and/or comparing the signatures of the wife/opposite party by the court itself, the court should have appointed an expert to do the job, as it is always a risky affair on the part of the court to assume the character of an expert and hence the impugned order should be set aside. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy Chowdhury also refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 14

( 6 ) MR. Haradhan Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the wife/opposite party, however, contends inter alia, referring to the previsions of sections 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, that the court has the power to compare and/or examine itself the admitted signatures of a person with his disputed signatures on record without calling for a handwriting expert and as such, in the present case, the act of the court below in comparing the admitted signatures of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document