A. K. Shrivastava, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by learned 9th Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 4-B/10, whereby application of defendants/petitioners to get the disputed signature on the document examined by the handwriting expert has been rejected this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this petition, suffice it to say that a suit for recovery of certain amount, the details of which are mentioned in the plaint, has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the petitioners/defendants. The petitioners by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and specifically denied the execution of the document as well as the signature on the disputed document of promissory note. The learned trial Court thereafter framed necessary issue and parties led their evidence. The learned trial Court thereafter fixed the case for final arguments. At that juncture, an application (Annexure P/7) dated 26.4.2010 was filed under section 45 of the Evidence Act praying therein that defendants want to get the disputed signature examined by examining the handwriting expert. The learned trial judge by impugned order has rejected the said application.

3. In this manner, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants. We have gone through the impugned order as well as the application filed by petitioners/defendants under section 45 of the Evidence Act. We have also heard Shri Mohan Mangal, Advocate for respondent/plaintiff and we are of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On going through plaint averments, it is gathered that a promissory note has been executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff/respondent. However, in the written statement there is total denial of the defendants not only in respect to the execution of the promissory note but also with respect to the signature of the defendant Laxman Agrawal on the said document. The learned trial Court also framed necessary issue in that regard and the parties led their evidence. True, the defendants/petitioners voluntarily closed their evidence and at the stage of final arguments an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed to get the disputed signature examined by the handwriting expert. The learned trial Judge has simply dismissed the application on the ground that it is filed at the fag end of the trial. Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out an specific bar in filing such type of application at the time of final arguments. In order to take out the grain from the chaff and to arrive at a proper conclusion as to whether the document was executed by the defendants and further that on the disputed document of promissory note the signature was put by defendant Laxman Agrawal or not, it was necessary to examine the handwriting expert and, therefore, according to us, the doors of justice cannot be shut merely on the ground that the application was moved by defendants at the fag end of the trial.

5. There are several modes to get a document proved. While examining the scope of section 67 of the Evidence Act we find that there cannot be any straight jacket formula or any particular mode of proving a particular document or handwriting or signature. Section 67 of the Evidence Act is the relevant provision in respect to the proof of signature and handwriting of a person. According to us, following are the modes for proving a document :

"(i) By calling a person who signed or wrote a document;

(ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written;

(iii) By calling handwriting expert;

(iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written;

(v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signatures