Gupta J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved with an order dated 15.01.2008 passed by 1 the Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 2A/06, whereby learned Judge has rejected an application dated 23.10.2007 filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting therein to permit her to get the disputed signatures of Balasaheb Paradkar examined by a hand writing expert, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that with regard to same disputed signatures (on Ex. P/9 & Ex.P115) an application filed earlier by opposite party-respondent No. 1/ defendant was allowed and the report of the hand writing expert of the opposite party filed, is on record. After considering the report against the interest of the petitioner, she has also applied to provide same opportunity to her in rebuttal. The present application has been disputed by the opposite party-respondents herein. The learned Judge while passing the impugned order has observed that there is already one report of the hand writing expert available on record, hence, permitting again for seeking second report of the different handwriting expert with regard to same disputed signatures does not appear justified. If the petitioner/plaintiff is not satisfied with the earlier report, she can cross-examine handwriting expert concerned.

3. While, placing reliance on the following orders of this Court, Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that calling second hand writing expert's report is not prohibited by law. When opportunity of filing such report has been allowed to one party, in rebuttal, the opposite party also require to be provided such an opportunity. :-

(1) Bahulal vs. Gendalal, 1986 (I) MPWN 119

(2) Jai Narayan vs Satya Narayan & Others, 1991 JLJ 428, and

(3) Order dated 22.08.2007 passed by Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3848/2007 in the case of Rajendra Singh and Another v. Gajraj Singh.

4. While countering the contentions of the petitioner, Shri Vivek Khedkar learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that once report is available on record, the opposite party can only be permitted to cross-examine the expert. Seeking another report at the behest of opposite party is not required. He has placed reliance on the following judgments :

(1) Balakrishna Menon & Another vs Padmavathy Amma & Another, AIR 1993 Kerala 218

(2) Sivaraman vs V.C.Narayanan AIR 1987 Kerala 156 (3) R. Vijayudu vs. N. Ramachandra Reddy AIR 2005 NOC 140 (Andhra Pradesh).

Shri Khedkar while placing reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others AIR 1984 SC 38 has also submitted that in a petition under Article 227 of Constitution, the High Court has only to see that inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limit of its authority. It is not required to correct the error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law.

5. It is true that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to see that inferior Court or the Tribunal functions within the limit of the authority provided to it. However, if the function of inferior Court appears erroneous to the extent showing its working not as per the authority, then of course the hands of this Court are not closed. Proper function of the Courts working under this Court also require to be seen as has been observed by the apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus (supra). In our considered opinion, denying desired opportunity to the petitioner for rebuttal is not justified. Particularly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in which according to the petitioner a fraud has been played by the respondents while shaking hands with each other with regard to property belonging to her. According to her, the respondent No.1 filed a collusive suit for specific performance against the respon