1. Where an expert has already furnished a report about the handwriting and fingerprint in dispute, can the court, without setting it aside, refer the matter to a second expert? This is the question raised. While the petitioners contend that the court has no jurisdiction to make a second reference without wiping out the earlier proceedings, in view of 0.26 R.10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the respondent would urge that a report is only a piece of evidence and that the Evidence Act does not restrict the choice to one only.

2. S.45 of the Evidence Act makes the opinion of an expert relevant when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing; and under S.46 facts otherwise irrelevant become relevant if they support or rebut the expert's opinion. These two provisions only deal with relevancy, and not with the mode of making expert opinion evidence before the court. S.59 provides that all facts except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence, and S.60 requires oral evidence to be direct. The opinion of an expert is not an exception to the latter requirement, unless covered by other statutory provisions. Even as regards the contents of do