Experts are witnesses called in aid by the parties and their opinions on matters requiring special skill are accepted as evidence. The weight of such evidence depends on the soundness of the reasons given in support of it.

1. The suit, out of which this Civil Revision Petition has arisen, is for money due under a Yadasthu (hand-note) by which the defendant is said to have acknowledged a loan of Rs. 19,000/- odd from the plaintiff. The yadasthu is said to be written by the defendant himself; but he denied the same. On the plaintiff's application it was sent to a calligraphic expert at Delhi for his opinion; and his report came to court on January 24, 1961. On February 19, 1961, the defendant applied for the Yadasthu being sent to another expert at Madras for his opinion. This was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that once an expert's opinion is come in the case, another should not be called unless and until the court has found the first opinion unacceptable. The objection was over-ruled by the trial court; and the plaintiff has come up in revision against that order.

2. The contention is that an expert in handwriting or finger-prints should be treated the same way as a commissioner deputed to make a local inspection; and as a second report from a new commissioner would not be called unless and until the report of the first commissioner is rejected as unreliable, the same principle should be applied to opinions called from experts as well. I am not persuaded by this analogy.

3. Experts are not to be treated as commissioners deputed by court. They are only witnesses called in aid by the parties. Witnesses ordinarily are to testify to facts in their direct knowledge, leaving it to the judge to form opinions, inferences or conclusions on the basis of such facts. Witnesses are ordinarily not to say what they thought or believed to be; and therefore their opinions are irrelevant in a judicial enquiry; but in certain special matters requiring special skill in the subject concerned, opinions of persons having special study, training or experience are accepted as evidence. A person instructed by experience is called an 'expert'.

4. S.45 of the Indian Evidence Act dealing with'Opinion of experts' provides thus:

"When the Court has to form an opinion, as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specifically skilled in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts."

This section only lays down that the opinions of experts on the matters specified are relevant as evidence. The quotation from Dr. Lawson's work on the Law of Expert and Opinion Evidence made in ILR. 36 Madras 159 at page 164 seems to be apposite here:

"The evidence of the genuineness of the signature based upon the comparison of handwriting and of the opinion of experts is entitled to proper consideration and weight. It must be confessed however that it is of the lowest order of evidence or of the most unsatisfactory character".

The weight of such evidence tendered by an expert depends upon the soundness of the reasons given in support of it. If he gives no data in support of his opinion, the opinion deserves only to be rejected. It then follows that the report of an expert as to his opinion is not legal evidence unless he appears in court as a witness and is examined by both parties in respect of his opinion. In an enquiry as to the identity of a handwriting, the court has to be told the peculiar prevailing character of the handwriting concerned which distinguishes it from the handwriting of every other person, the correctness of which will have to be tested by cross-examination by the opposing party. It is possible then to weigh the opinions of experts who may appear to testify to the same on the strength of the data and the reasons that each expert-witness may give in support of his opinion. Suffice it to say for the present that experts are just like other witnesses and may be called in any number by the parties concerned.

5. There is no rule of law or of practice that, when a witness has been called in by one side to testify to a particular fact, the court shoul