JASRAJ CHOPRA, J.—This revision petition is directed against order of the learned Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated 21.2. 1986 whereby the learned Magistrate has accepted the application filed by defendant-non-petitioner Mahaveerraj under O. IX, r. 13 read with s. 151 C.P.C. and has set aside the ex-parte decree pissed in Civil Original Case No. 91 of 1984 (Mishrimal V. Mahaveerraj) on 28.4.1984. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are: that plaintiff Mishrimal filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against defendant Mahaveerraj Loonkar on 4.6.1983. It is alleged that summons of this case were personally served on defendant Mahaveerraj and he put in appearance in the Court on that very day and after getting copy of the plaint, he appended a note to that effect over his signatures in the order sheet. Thereafter, he did not appeared before the Court. It is alleged that he was carrying some love affairs with the daughter of the plaintiff and he eloped with her to Bombay on 26.1.1984 and contracted the marriage with her adopting the Arya Samaj rites on 16.2.1984. In the mean while, no body appeared on behalf of the defendant and, therefore, an exparte decree was passed against him as aforesaid. 3. The defendant returned back to Jodhpur on 22.10.1984. It is alleged that he came to know about the exparte decree on 25.10.1984 In the meanwhile, the exparte decree was executed and possession of the property was handed over to plaintiff Mishrimal. The case of the defendant-non-petitioner Mahaveerraj is that he came to know about the existence of the decree for the first time on 25. 10.1984 and as summons have not been served on him personally and he has not put in appearance before the Court and as such, the exparte decree should be set aside. In support of this application, he filed certain affidavits including the affidavit of plaintiffs daughter, who contracted the marriage with defendant Mahaveerraj according to the Arya Samaj rites. 10.1984 and as summons have not been served on him personally and he has not put in appearance before the Court and as such, the exparte decree should be set aside. In support of this application, he filed certain affidavits including the affidavit of plaintiffs daughter, who contracted the marriage with defendant Mahaveerraj according to the Arya Samaj rites. The plaintiff filed a reply alleging inter-alia that summons of the suit were personally served on the defendant and he has personally appeared in the court and has obtained the copy of the plaint after appending his signatures in the ordersheet and, therefore, service was sufficient and hence, the application filed under O. IX, r. 13 read with s. 151 C.P.C. on 19.11.1984 is definitely time barred. In support of this application, defendant Mahaveerraj examined himself as P.W. 1 and from the side of the plaintiff, NAW 1 Mishrimal, NAW 2 Mahaveer Kankariya, NAW 3 Shivial and NAW 4 Devisingh were examined Certain documents i.e. Ordersheets and summons containing the alleged signatures of the defendant were exhibited. When the defendant-non-petitioner entered the witness box, his specimen writings and signatures were obtained by the Court at the request of the plaintiff-petitioner. However, his specimen writing and signatures were not sent for any expert examination because neither the plaintiff nor the defendant requested for that. However, the learned lower court disbelieved the testimony of NAW 1 Mishrimal, NAW 2 Mahaveer Kankariya and N A.W. 4 Devisingh. As regards the testimony of N.A.W. 3 Shivial, the learned lower court held that he has not identified the person who has signed the ordersheet dated 23.1.84 in his presence and therefore, his testimony cannot be read to prove the fact that it was the defendant-non-petitioner Mahaveerraj alone who has signed on the ordersheet on 23.1.1984 and hence, it has set aside the exparte decree and hence this revision by the plaintiff-petitioner Mishrimal. 4. I have hearh Mr. Meghraj Thanvi, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. R.M. Bhansali, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-non-petitioner and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. R.M. Bhansali, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-non-petitioner has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the revision petition. In this respect, he has placed reliance on Mahindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. V. Bhutnath Banerjee (1) and Manick Chandra Nandy V. Debdas Nandy (2). 6. 5. Mr. R.M. Bhansali, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-non-petitioner has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the revision petition. In this respect, he has placed reliance on Mahindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. V. Bhutnath Banerjee (1) and Manick Chandra Nandy V. Debdas Nandy (2). 6. In Mahindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd.s case (supra), it has been observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court as under: "It is not open to the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under s. 115, to question the findings of fact recorded by a subordinate court. Section 115 applies to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, i.e. questions regarding the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or the illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court and is not directed against conclusion of law or fact in which questions of jurisdiction are not involved." It was further observed: "The proposition that an erroneous decision on a question of limitation involves the question of jurisdiction applies to cases in which the law definitely ousts the jurisdiction of the Court to try a certain dispute between the parties and not to cases in which there is no such ouster of jurisdiction under the provisions of any law but where it is left to the Court itself to determine certain matters as a result of which determination the Court has to pass a certain order and may, if necessary, proceed to decide the dispute between the parties. The distinction between the two classes of cases is that in one, the Court decides a question of law pertaining to jurisdiction. In the other, it decides a question within its jurisdiction." "Under Sec. 3 of the Limitation Act, it is the duty of the Court not to proceed with the application if it is made beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The Court has no choice and if in construing the necessary provision of the Limitation Act or in determining which provision of the Limitation Act applies, the Subordinate Court comes to erroneous decision, it is open to the High Court in revision to interfere with that conclusion as that conclusion led the Court to assume or not to assume the jurisdiction to proceed with the determination of that matter. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the other hand, empowers the Court to admit an application, to which its provisions are made applicable, even when presented after the expiry of the specified period of limitation if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within time. The question whether there was a sufficient cause is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court and the Court can decide it rightly or wrongly. Their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in Manick Chandra Nandys case (supra) "that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is confined to questions of jurisdiction. While in a first appeal, the Court is free to decide all questions of law and fact which arise in the case, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is not entitled to re-examine of re-assess the evidence on, record and substitute its own findings on facts for those of the subordinate court. It was further observed that the High Court cannot function as a Court of first appeal so far as the assessment of evidence is concerned and substitute its own findings for those arrived at by the subordinate court unless any such finding is not in anyway borne out by the evidence on the record or is manifestly contrary to evidence or so palpably wrong that if allowed to stand would result in grave injustice to a party. 7. Mr. R.M. Bhansali, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-non-petitioner has submitted that the two phrases:(1) would occasion failure of justice and (ii) or cause irreparable injury used in S. 115 C.P.C. have come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Nandlal V. Pritam Kumari (3) and this Court held that a revision cannot be entertained unless the Court is convinced that one of the two conditions which are exception to the proviso are fulfilled in that case. S. 115 C.P.C. lays down that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where:-(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the part) applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. 8. Mr. Meghraj Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that actually it is a case of jurisdictional error because in this case, the learned lower court has not exercised its jurisdiction vested in it According to him in this case, actually summons were served personally on the defendant and he has put his personal appearance in the court and has obtained copy of the plaint because it was not supplied him by the process Server. He has submitted that on that day, the defendant had appended his signatures on the summons as well as on the ordersheet. NAW 3 Shivlal has submitted that the person named Mahaver Raj came to him to obtain copy of the plaint and made an endorsement in the ordersheet of the Court that he has received the copy of the plaint and then he appended his signatures C to D on Ex. 1. On 23.1.1984, two ordersheets have been recorded In the first ordersheet, it has been mentioned that summons have not been received either served or unserved and therefore fresh summons be issued and thereafter, the other ordersheet has been written wherein the defendant has put in appearance before the Court and has obtained copy of the plaint. Ordinarily, two ordersheets on the same day are not written unless there are exceptional circumstances. If the Reader of the Court was hand in gloves with the plaintiff, he could not have written the second ordersheet mentioning therin that summons duly served have been received and copy of the plaint has been supplied to defendant Mahaveerraj. Ordinarily, two ordersheets on the same day are not written unless there are exceptional circumstances. If the Reader of the Court was hand in gloves with the plaintiff, he could not have written the second ordersheet mentioning therin that summons duly served have been received and copy of the plaint has been supplied to defendant Mahaveerraj. If the Reader was in connivance with the son of the plaintiff, he could have done so in the earlier order-sheet, but when two ordersheets have been written, it clearly shows that the order sheets are bonafide and they have been recorded in due performance of the duties by the Reader of the Court. This fact is further supported by the evidence of NAW 4 Devisingh that on that very day, Mahaveerraj met him in the Court and he obtained copy of the summons but as summons were not accompanied by the copy of the plaint, he recorded that fact on the back of the summons and thereafter, appended his signatures on Ex.2. Both these witnesses have been examined by the court on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. NAW 2 Mahaveerraj, who is the son of the plaintiff has also stated that summon were delivered to the defendant in his presence and obtained the copy of the plaint in the Court in the presence of the Reader and his own counsel. His counsel has not been examined but he him self entered the witness box and has stated that such summons were served personally on the defendant and he obtained a copy of the plaint from him through the Court. These facts have been denied by P.W. 1. Mahaveerraj. His evidence is not supported by any witness. His specimen writings and signatures were taken by the Court. In such cases, a duty is cast on the Court to use its own eyes and mind to compare the admitted writings and signature with the disputed cnes to varify and reach its own conclusion. Mr. Thanvi has supported that contention by a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram (4) wherein it has been observed. Mr. Thanvi has supported that contention by a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram (4) wherein it has been observed. "Since even where proof of handwriting which is in nature comparison, exists, a duty is cast on the Court to use its own eyes and mind to compare the admitted writing with the disputed one to verify and reach its own conclusion it will not be wrong to say that when a Court seized of a case, directs an accused person present before it to write down a sample writing, such direction in the ultimate analysis " is for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare" the writing so written with the writing alleged to have been written by such person, within the contemplation of s. 73" "Although, there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his girding with regard to the identity of a had writing which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is therefore, not admisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. It was further observed: "Even where no such expert witness is cited or examined by either party, the Court may, if it thinks necessary for the ends of justice on its own motion, call an expert witness, allow him to compare the sample writing with the alleged writing and thus give his expert assistance to enable the Court to compare the two writings and arrive at a proper conclusion. "Further, once a Magistrate in seisin of a case, duly forms an opinion that the assistance of an expert is essential to enable the Court to arrive at a just determination of the issue of the identity of the disputed writing, the fact that this may result in the filling of loop-holes in the prosecution case is purely a subsidiary factor which must give way to the paramount consideration of doing justice. Moreover, it could not be predicated at that stage whether the opinion of the Government Expert of Questioned Documents would go in favour of the prosecution or the defence." In this case the plaintiff and his witnesses have alleged that the defendant Mahaverraj has signed on the back of the summons with an endorsement that he has received the summons personally but summon are not accompanied by the copy of the plaint. It is alleged that thereafter, the defendant went to the Court and made an endorsement on the ordersheet that he has received the copy of the plaint and then signed on the ordersheet. The defendant admitted writings and signatures were obtained by the Court while he was under examination. Whatevery may be the evidence in the case, the matter only rests on the fact whether these endorsements and signatures have been made and appended by the defendant by the plaintiffs or son. When the Court has obtained those specimen writing and signatures of the defendant and when it was a disputed fact before it as to whether the defendant has recorded these facts and has appended his signatures below them and the parties have not moved for examination of these writings by an expert, then it was the duty of the Court to call an expert to arrive at a just decision in the case i.e. to find out as to whether summons were personally served on the defendant or not. That duty cast on the court by s. 73 of the Evidence Act has not been discharged and that amounts to a jurisdictional error. It may be that the Court might have felt certain hesitation in taking the sole responsibility for such a comperasion but in such cases, as per the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. It may be that the Court might have felt certain hesitation in taking the sole responsibility for such a comperasion but in such cases, as per the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Paliram (supra) the Court should certainly have called an expert of its own motion to get the sample writings and signatures compared with the disputed writings and signatures with his assistance and then Court itself may have compared the admitted writings and signatures with the disputed writings and signatures to arrive at a just decision of the case. The Court has failed to call an expert and as such, in my view, it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and that amounts to a jurisdictional error. 9. In this case, the exparty decree has already been executed and when the executed decree is set aside, it would certainly cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff-petitione-. In this case, the plaintiff has moved an application that he is ready to bear the costs of the experts examination. No reply to this applic-ation has been filed. This application has been opposed at the bar. I find this requset very reasonable. Actually the learned lower court ought to have called an expert of its own motion in order to secure the ends of justice even when such an application has not been moved before him. 10. In the result, I accept this revision, set aside the order of the learned Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated 21.2.1986 and remand the case back to the learned lower court with a direction to send the admitted and disputed writings of the defendant to an expert for comparision and scrutiny. The expences for sending the admitted and disputed writings of cthe defendant to an expert for obtaining his report as also the expeness of his exemination in the Court shall be borne by the plaintiff-petitioner. After receiving the report of the expert, the expert be called as a court witness and thereafter, both the parties should be allowed to lead the evidence to rebut the evidence given by the expert and than, after hearing both the parties afresh, the application under O. IX r. 13 read with s. 151 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-non petitioner be decided afresh on merits.