PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

Calling of experts as witnesses by parties to the litigation in India at least relates back from the date when the Evidence Act was enforced in India in the year 1872.

Through this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 07.05.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul whereby application filed by the petitioner-defendant for sending the pronote and receipt in dispute (in short the questioned documents) to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (in short SFSL) has been dismissed.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondent-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 4,03,200/- on the basis of questioned documents. Upon notice, the petitioner-defendant put in appearance through counsel and filed his written statement. Various objections were taken. One of the objections was that questioned documents were forged and fabricated and material alterations and additions had been made therein. On pleadings of parties, issues were framed and parties led their respective evidence. The petitioner-defendant examined V.B. Bhatnagar, handwriting and fingerprint expert in his evidence and the respondent-plaintiff examined Anil Gupta, handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence. Since the reports of both these experts were contradictory, the petitioner-defendant moved application for sending the questioned documents to the SFSL for comparison of alleged signatures of the petitioner-defendant and also alleged alteration and addition in the questioned documents, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.05.2013. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that opinions of two handwriting experts are contradictory. The handwriting expert of the petitioner categorically stated that the signatures over the questioned documents materially differ from the admitted/standard signatures of the petitioner-defendant, whereas, the handwriting expert of the respondent-plaintiff stated that the signatures over the questioned documents tally with the admitted signatures. In reply to the application for comparison of questioned documents by the government agency, the respondent had averred that he has no objection from getting the disputed signatures examined from any forensic science laboratory. In the above circumstances, the Court should seek opinion from an independent expert.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that neither there is any variation in the signatures on the questioned documents, nor there is any material alteration and addition. The report of the expert examined by the petitioner-defendant is a doctored report and the Court has power to examine the signatures itself. The sending of questioned documents to the SFSL would delay the decision of the case. The expert examined by the respondent-plaintiff in rebuttal is a qualified expert.

Considering the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the primary controversy with regard to the questioned documents is whether these are forged and fabricated and have material alterations and additions. Although the application has been filed for comparison of the questioned documents from SFSL as an additional evidence, but perusal of application reveals that in fact, it is under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Piquant situation arises when expert opinion on handwriting is countered by contrary expert opinion. Often, a Court is faced with conflicting evidence given by the handwriting experts. This obviously is disruptive to trial and generally weakens the credibility of expert evidence. Assuming that the ex