The court has the power to direct a party to provide signatures and thumb impressions for comparison, regardless of the party's willingness, as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) - Notice of this revision was sent to the respondent. As reported by the Registry, respondent has been duly served. None appears. He is set ex parte.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Petitioners are plaintiffs in the suit for possession of the shop shown as red in the site plan claiming to be the owners of the shop. It has been alleged that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and a rent note dated June 30, 3002, was also executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners. It is further mentioned that the defendant could not carry on the business and possession of the shop was surrendered after receiving Rs. 35,000/- from the plaintiff through a cheque dated October 19, 2004. The defendant also executed a receipt on the same date acknowledging receipt of the amount and surrender of possession. According to the allegations made in the plaint, the defendant, thereafter, forcibly took over the possession of the shop on October 24, 2004, with the help of anti-social elements and in connivance with the police demanding more money.

4. The defendant denied the execution of the rent note and also the receipts (Exs. P-18 & 19). Though, the evidence has been led to prove these documents. The plaintiff also moved an application under Section 45/73 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking a direction for personal appearance of the defendant in the Court for giving his thumb impressions and specimen signatures for comparison with the disputed documents by the Expert.

5. This application was resisted by other side. The defendant refused to give his signatures as also thumb impressions.

6. The trial Court accordingly, vide the impugned order dismissed the application on the sole ground that the defendant is unwilling to give his specimen signatures and thumb impressions.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It may be useful to refer to Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, which are reproduced hereunder :-

"Section 45. Opinions of experts. - When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in-questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger imperssions] are relevant facts.

Such persons are called experts.

(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison.

The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.

The opinions of the experts upon the questions whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts, which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.

(c) The question is whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A.

The opinions of the experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.

Section 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. - In order to ascertain whether signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may direct any person present in Court to