JUDGMENT :

1. A comparison made under Section 73 of the Evidence Act with respect to disputed handwriting and signature can be the sole basis in proof of due execution of a disputed document is the question came up for consideration.

2. A disputed promissory note, Ext.A1 was compared under Section 73 of the Evidence Act by the courts below and found resemblance with the admitted one and found that its execution is duly proved. The plaintiff gave oral evidence as PW1. But it is only an interested testimony. No independent witness was examined. Both the courts below compared the signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and found that the promissory note was duly executed and granted a decree.

3. Section 73 of the Evidence Act is really a rule of caution and prudence and not a substitute for an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The court is not precluded from coming to its conclusion by a comparison under Section 73 of the Act. But the court is not an expert and cannot be an expert and as such, its conclusion may have its own infirmities. The court cannot act as a witness to its proceedings and cannot draw an expert opinion as contemplated under Section 45 of the