( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has sought to raise a question of law from the fact that the trial Court had examined the documents on which there were admitted signatures and documents which bore the disputed signature, and by comparing the two had formed an opinion as to the genuineness of the defendants signature on Exh. 24/2 and discarding Exh. 42 as not bearing the signature of the plaintiff. The main thrust of the contention was that the Court ought not to have examined these documents by itself for the purpose of forming its opinion, and not that the Court could not in law have done so.

( 3 ) IN this context, learned Counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon a number of decisions. 3. 1 He first sought to rely upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. M. Sharma v. South Gujarat University, 1982 (1) GLR 233. In my opinion, this decision would be of no assistance to the appellant inasmuch as the only relevant principle laid down, in the context of a domestic inquiry, is that although the law authorises a Court to compare hand-writing, it would be imprudent to base a conclusion of guilt solely on a bare comparison