( 1. ) THIS revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the judgment-decree dated 10-9-2003, passed by ADJ, Khurai, in C. A. No. 5-B/2002.

( 2. ) PLAINTIFF/petitioner instituted C. S. No. 19-B/2002 before Civil Judge Class I, Khurai for recovery of Rs. 23,000/- together with interest from the defendant/respondent on the ground that on 2-12-97, the aforesaid amount was deposited by him with the defendant/respondent. On demand, the defendant/respondent failed to refund the same. The suit aforesaid has been resisted by the defendant/respondent stating inter alia that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is false as no amount was ever been deposited with him and the agreement dated 2-12-97 was never executed between the parties. The Civil Judge accepting the contention of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment dated 31-7-2002 in C. S. No. 19-B/2002 held that the defendant/respondent obtained the amount aforesaid from the plaintiff/petitioner and the agreement (Exhibit P-1) accordingly was executed and signed. On demand, the defendant/respondent failed to return the amount. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. 23,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been decreed. Being aggrieved, defendant/respondent preferred C. A. No. 5-B/2002 before ADJ, Khurai. The Court below vide impugned judgment dated 10-9-2003 allowing the appeal set aside the judgment-decree dated 31-7-2002 passed by Civil Judge in C. S. No. 19-B/2002, instead dismissed the suit for recovery of aforesaid sum together with interest. Being aggrieved, plaintiff/petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 115, CPC.

( 3. ) DHANNALAL (P. W. 1) has stated that defendant/respondent being relative was known to him and on 2-12- 97, he accepted a deposit of Rs. 23,000/-by executing agreement (Exhibit P-1 ). The agreement (Exhibit P-1) was signed by the defendant/respondent at a to a. The fact of receiving the amount aforesaid by the defendant/respondent from Dhannalal (P. W. 1) has been proved from the statements of Bhujbal (P. W. 2), Ramcharan (P. W. 4 ). Parasram (P. W. 3), the scribe of this document (Exhibit P-1) has stated that as agreed by defendant/respondent, the document was written by him and on receipt of Rs. 23,000/- from the plaintiff/petitioner, defendant/respondent Dharamlal signed the document at a to a. On the basis aforesaid, the Civil Judge disbelieved the statement of Dharamlal (D. W. 1) to the effect that sum of Rs. 23,000/- were not received by him and he did not execute-sign the document (Exhibit P-1 ). Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. 23,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been decreed. The Appellate Court are appreciated the evidence with reference to finding recorded in Para 17 of the impugned judgment. The Court below under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, tried to compare the disputed signature a to a on Exhibit P-1 with the standard signature of defendant/respondent appearing on written statement and held that the signature a to a on Exhibit P-1 are not identical with that of standard signature. On observation aforesaid, the entire evidence on record has been discarded and the statement of Dharamlal (D. W. 1) has been accepted. The appeal has been allowed and the suit C. S. No. 19- B/2002 for recovery of aforesaid sum together with interest has been rejected.

( 4. ) SECTION 73 of the Evidence Act provides authority to the Court to compare the disputed writing-signature with that of standard. However, the scope for exercising jurisdiction aforesaid is narrower than the one exercised by the Court below in arriving at a conclusion as per Para 17 of the impugned judgment. On various occasions, the Court refused to permit a comparison by the jury without the help of experts as to leave a question of handwriting to be decided by a jury unaided by expert evidence was a dangerous course that should not be followed. In all cases, the witnesses, the jury and the Court may re