The court emphasized the right of parties to produce relevant evidence, including expert opinions, and the court's jurisdiction to consider and compare expert opinions before accepting or rejecting them. The trial court's pre-judgment of evidence during trial was deemed erroneous, and the importance of allowing parties to obtain expert opinions to rebut the opinions submitted by the opposing party was highlighted.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dated 29th November, 2003 by which the trial Court dismissed the petitioners two applications, one for taking on record the expert opinion, which petitioner obtained himself from hand writing expert Ramesh Thakkar and prayed that in case there is any objection of the plaintiff about the report of said Ramesh Thakkar as it was obtained not with the prior leave of the Court then the Court may permit the hand writing expert to take photographs of the relevant documents so that fresh report may be brought on record by the petitioner-defendant. The petitioners second application was also with respect to the other documents but for the same purpose of obtaining expert report, that too, was dismissed by the trial Court.

3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant, the plaintiff-respondent was allowed to obtain the hand writing expert report for the document and to rebut that document, the report of another hand writing expert is necessary and without that opinion, the petitioner will not be able to sufficiently rebut the expert opinion, which has been submitted at the instance of the plaintiff .

4. The trial Court observed that since the documents, which have been relied upon by the petitioner are not containing the signature admitted by the executant or by the plaintiff , therefore, the signature cannot be compared. The trial Court also observed that the plaintiff himself obtained photostat copy of the document and got the comparison of the signature through his expert, which was not in accordance with the relevant rules and, therefore, both the applications of the petitioner were dismissed.

5. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner submits that the petitioner did not challenge the hand writing expert report, which was submitted in the Court and unless that report is challenged and remains in force, no second report can be summoned. It is also submitted that the petitioner has other mode to rebut the expert opinion, which is already on record.

6. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. At the outset it can be said that the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it while deciding the two applications of the petitioner filed for obtaining the expert opinion for the signatures on relevant documents. The trial Court allowed plaintiff to obtain the expert opinion for the one document, but denied the relief to the defendant, who wants to rebut the expert opinion by expert opinion. Every party to the suit has right to produce the relevant evidence before the Court subject to procedure as provided in law. The opinion of the expert is admissible in evidence. When one party is granted permission to produce the expert opinion for hand writing or thumb impression in dispute then the best way to rebut the expert opinion is by another expert opinion. The Court has jurisdiction to consider the expert opinion in the light of the evidence produced before the Court and, thereafter, either to accept or reject the expert opinion. For the purpose of accepting or rejecting the opinion of the expert, the Court can examine the one expert opinion report and compare the report with another report to find out, which is more reliable report. Ones a permission is granted to one party to obtain expert opinion then normally on request in time, the same permission is required to be given to the party contesting the report unless the Court reaches to the conclusion that the contesting party by his own conduct disentitled himself for the relief .

7. The trial Court in this case, even went to the extent of observing that at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the expert opinion dated 30th June, 2003 (obtained and produced by the plaintiff ). The trial Court at this stage, could not have observed so because it is pre-judging a piece of evidence during trial. Even otherwis