Pradipta Ray, J. - (1.) THE contesting Defendant Nos. 9 to 11, who are opp. parties 2 to 11 in this revision have entered caveat and accordingly this case is disposed of at the stage of admission after a contested hearing.
(2.) IN this revision Plaintiff -petitioners have challenged order No. 112 dated July 12,1996 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the Petitioners' application Under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending endorsement of cancellation and signature (Ext.E/1) appearing on the document (Ext.E) to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion. It appears that on July 5, 1996 the disputed power of attorney (Ext.E) was filed in the Trial Court. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners put an endorsement on the list of documents furnished to him "received with objection". On July 8, 1996 the Plaintiff -petitioners filed an application alleging, inter alia, that the endorsement of cancellation on the disputed power of attorney stated to have been made by late Soumen Benerji is forged and the signature is not that of said Soumen Benerji. On the same date, i.e. July 8,1996 Smt. Rekha Mukherji, Defendant No. 6 deposed as D.W.4. The disputed power of attorney and the endorsement thereon were sought to be proved by the said D.W.4 during her examination -in -chief. During the crops -examination on be -half of the Plaintiff Petitioners specific suggestion was put that Ext.E/1 is not the handwriting of Soumen Benerji and that the signature appearing below the endorsement is not his signature. On July 9, 1996 the Plaintiff filed an application under, Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act praying for sending the admitted signatures of Soumen Banerji and the disputed endorsement and signature to a recognised Hand -writing Expert for comparison and opinion. By the impugned order the Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that Ext.E/1 has been marked without any objection and that the Judge himself is competent to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted signature or writing of the author.
(3.) MR . Mukherji appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has referred to the sequence of events and submitted that the trial court was incorrect in proceeding upon the view that the signature and the writing were marked as Exhibits without any objection. He has further submitted that although the Court has the authority and jurisdiction to compare the signatures, but for the sake of prudence and better scientific comparison court should take the opinion of the Expert.;