Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum. In letters written to the plaintiff, he had acknowledged the factum of he being indebted to the petitioner-defendant for repayment of the loan.

2. During the course of evidence, one document (Annexure P-4) was put to the respondent-plaintiff but he denied the same. Sequelly, an application was moved by the applicant-defendant for obtaining specimen handwriting and signatures of the plaintiff so that a comparison could be made by the handwriting expert from the admitted or specimen signatures and writing of the respondent with the disputed signatures and writing on the document (Annexure P-4).

3. The court below making a bold assertion that there was no provision under the Civil Procedure Code whereby the civil court could pass any direction to a party to give specimen signature and handwriting declined the request of the petitioner-defendant on 12.5.2012. This order (Annexure P-8) is under challenge in this revision petition.

4. Perusal of the impugned order along with application of the petitioner-defendant and reply of the plaintiff leave no manner of doubt that approach of the lower court had been very casual and perfunctory. For convenience and clarity, it would be important to refer to provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act) which for ready reference is reproduced as below:

"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. In order to ascertain whether a 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 write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

(This Section applies also, with any necessary medication, to finger-impressions)"

5. There does not remain any dispute that the court can always call upon a party to give his specimen handwriting and signatures for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures and handwriting so as to reach to a conclusion for adjudication of the matter in controversy.

6. At this stage, reference to Section 45 of the Evidence Act would also be necessary and the same is reproduced as under:

"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 opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.

7. Section 45 of the Evidence Act relates to "opinions of experts". It provides, interalia, that when the court has to form an opinion as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in the field as to identity handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Reference in this regard may be made to Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal and another 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 262 (Supreme Court).

8. The matter of comparison of signatures and disputed signatures and handwriting had been agitating the minds of the courts quite often. In Sheo Narain and another v. Rawat 1985 (1) PLR 47 (P&H)., it was specifically held that the court is empowered to call upon a party to give his specimen signatures, handwriting or thumb impressions and request could not be declined merely on the ground that it had been made by a party to the litigati