JUDGMENT 1. The defendant in O. S. No. 185/85 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, is the appellant. The suit is for realisation of money from the defendant. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court below in the above suit allowing the plaintiff to realise an amount of Rs. 22,198 and 6 per cent interest on the principal amount. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 17,600 on 7th February 1983 and he had executed Ext. A-1 promissory note for the said amount. Even though it was agreed to be repaid on demand, the defendant refused to make payment and it was in that background the suit was filed. The case of the defendant on the other hand is that he did not execute the promissory note nor did he receive any consideration. On the side of the plaintiff two witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 is the plaintiff and P.W. 2 is one of the attesting witnesses to the Ext. A-1. On the side of the defendant two witnesses were examined, D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. The court below after the trial found that the contentions of the defendant were untrue and a decree was accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiff as above. 3. The Ext. A-1 dated 7th February 1983 is alleged to be the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The entire cause of action of the suit is based on Ext. A-1 promissory note. In the written statement filed by the defendant on 16th October, 1985 specifically denied the execution of the promissory note. In view of this specific denial, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ext. A-1 document. In order to discharge that burden the plaintiff has examined one K. P. Aliyar as P.W. 2. His name is found to be seen entered on Ext. A-1 promissory note as the last among the four attesting witnesses. However, it is pertinent to note that the Scribe of Ext. A-1 P. M. Mohammed has not been examined. This would have been the best evidence in this case. The explanation for his non examination is that he is a close relative of the defendant. A-1 promissory note as the last among the four attesting witnesses. However, it is pertinent to note that the Scribe of Ext. A-1 P. M. Mohammed has not been examined. This would have been the best evidence in this case. The explanation for his non examination is that he is a close relative of the defendant. It does not stand to reason because P.W. 2 is also found to be a relative of defendant. If the Scribe had been examined, he would have given the true version. Therefore, the non examination of Scribe is very fatal to the case of the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is insufficient to prove the execution of Ext. A-1 legally. 4. The plaintiff filed I.A. 5491/87 for getting specimen thumb impression of the defendant for obtaining expert opinion, in view of this the thumb impression of the defendant was taken in open court and accordingly I.A. No. 5491/87 was allowed. From the judgment of the court below. it would appear that subsequently the plaintiff resiled from taking steps for examining the thumb impression by Fingerprint Expert. The explanation offered for not sending the specimen thumb impression for expert opinion is that such procedure was too expensive. I am not impressed with this reason recorded by the court below It is in evidence that the plaintiff is affluent. That apart it was the plaintiff who filed the petition for getting thumb impression for examination. The real reasons for withdrawing from such steps are yet to be known. 5. The court below adopted the view that the opinion of a Fingerprint Expert is not a conclusive proof I think that the court below has not properly appreciated the legal position for holding such a view. It is generally accepted That no two fingerprints are identical and that the fingerprint cannot be changed. The Supreme Court in Murarilal v. State of M P. AIR 1980 SC 531 observed thus: "The science of identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non existent". It is generally accepted That no two fingerprints are identical and that the fingerprint cannot be changed. The Supreme Court in Murarilal v. State of M P. AIR 1980 SC 531 observed thus: "The science of identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non existent". In Jaspal Singh v. state of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1708 it said: "The science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt." In view of the above decisions, I have no hesitation to say that the opinion by a Fingerprint Expert is the best evidence available in this case and the plaintiff after having obtained an order from the court in that behalf ought to have taken steps and thus made available the best evidence before the court, I think it would be essential to obtain an opinion by a Fingerprint Expert for deciding this case in view of the nature of the contest involved in this case. In that view of the matter, I set aside 'the judgment and decree of the court below and remand the case 'to the Trial Court for granting a fresh opportunity to the plaintiff to take steps for obtaining best evidence, that is to say, a report from the Fingerprint Expert pursuant to the order passed by the court below in LA No. 5491/87. In case the plaintiff fails to obtain such an opinion from the Fingerprint Expert as directed above, a strong adverse inference shall be drawn against him in the suit. I also make it clear that the plaintiff as well as the defendant are free to adduce further evidence in support of their respective pleas if found necessary. 6. The court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refused to the appellant defendant. Both parties are directed to appear before the court below on 3rd June 1996. The appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.