JUDGMENT 1. - In a suit instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner for recovery of Rs. 22,500/- against the defendant, the defendant-respondent has produced a receipt dated 12th April, 1981, for Rs. 10,000/-, stated to have been executed by the plaintiff on receipt of the above-said amount from the defendant. The genuineness of the receipt has been disputed by the plaintiff. The case is still at the state of the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff had not submitted report of any hand wri ting-expert and had not submitted name of any handwriting-expert, in the list of witnesses to be examined by him. He made an application for permission to examine the handwriting-expert to compare the signatures on the receipt in question with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff- petitioner. The application having been opposed, has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 2nd June, 1992, on the ground that the case was at the stage of arguments and that the court can compare the disputed signatures on the receipt in question with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff-petitioner at the time of final arguments, and feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this revision petition. 2. On receipt of notice to show cause, Shri S.C. Gupta has appeared for the respondent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is not disputed before me that the case is still at the stage of evidence of the plaintiff, and the learned trial court wrongly observed that the case is at the arguments stage. 5. There is no dispute that at the final stage, the court can compare the signatures on the receipt in question with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff-petitioner, but, if the petitioner wants to lead evidence by examining a handwriting- expert to prove that the receipt produced by the defendant is not a genuine one and does not bear his signatures, the opportunity to him cannot be denied, as the opinion of the handwriting-expert will be a relevant piece of evidence, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, who would have a right to lead evidence in rebuttal either by examining another handwriting-expert or otherwise. 6. In my view, the learned trial court did not exercise its jurisdiction properly, while dismissing the application. 7. 6. In my view, the learned trial court did not exercise its jurisdiction properly, while dismissing the application. 7. Consequently, I accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and allow the application, moved by the plaintiff-petitioner, for permission to examine the handwriting- expert as his witness. Needless to say that the respondent- defendant will also have the right to lead evidence in rebuttal, to such statement. 8. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of with no orders as to costs.Revision Accepted. *******