JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - 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 u/s 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 4. 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. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the opp. parties 9 to 11 has submitted that when the Hand-writing was proved by D.W.4 during her examination-in-chief no objection was raised and accordingly the endorsement that the writings and signatures were exhibited without objection is correct. He has further submitted that the disputed writing and the signatures being exhibited without objection the Petitioners are no longer entitled to question or dispute the genuineness of the writing and the signatures. He has also urged that by the impugned order no case was decided and as such this application u/s 115 of the CPC is not maintainable. 6. The relevant facts have already been stated herein above. From the said facts it cannot be said that the disputed writing and signatures were exhibited without objection. Even before the commencement of the deposition of D.W. 4 a written application was filed disputing the genuineness of the said writing and signatures. During cross-examination also said dispute was raised. In such circumstances merely because no objection was raised at the time when the witness sought to prove signature cannot be construed as an admission of the genuineness of the said disputed writings. 7. One of the grounds for rejection of the Petitioners' application is that the Court is competent to compare the signatures and to arrive at a finding. While taking such view, the Trial Court has failed to take note of the repeated cautions given by the Supreme Court in several decisions. In The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, has laid down: The matter can be viewed from another angle also. While taking such view, the Trial Court has failed to take note of the repeated cautions given by the Supreme Court in several decisions. In The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, has laid down: The matter can be viewed from another angle also. Although there is no legal bat 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 hand writing expert, the judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a hand-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 advisable 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. Similar view was also expressed in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. Vs. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and others, 8. The Court has, no doubt, power to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether the disputed writing is that of the person by whom it is stated to have been written, but as a matter of prudence Court should not venture such comparison by itself and should take the assistance of expert's opinion in arriving at a finding. The opinion of handwriting expert is not final and conclusive because science of comparison of hand-writing has not yet reached perfection. Still Hand-writing Expert's opinion which has some scientific basis can act as a useful guide in the process of ascertaining the actual fact. At the same time, it is correct that Court is not to mechanically send any disputed writing for opinion of the Handwriting Expert as soon as such a prayer is made. The Court may initially look to the disputed handwriting along with the admitted hand-writing to see whether any discrepancy present itself before bare eye. If the Court finds that demand for sending the signature to Handwriting Expert is frivolous and there is absolutely no discrepancy warranting any reference for Expert's opinion, the Court may refuse to accede to such prayer. The Court may initially look to the disputed handwriting along with the admitted hand-writing to see whether any discrepancy present itself before bare eye. If the Court finds that demand for sending the signature to Handwriting Expert is frivolous and there is absolutely no discrepancy warranting any reference for Expert's opinion, the Court may refuse to accede to such prayer. In other words, Court is to be satisfied that prima facie case has been made out for sending the disputed writing or signature to the Expert. The Court, however, should not reject an application for examination by a Hand-writing Expert on the ground that the discrepancy between the disputed signature and the admitted signature will be considered and determined by him without any Expert's opinion when a party has made such a prayer. In the present case there is no finding that there is no discrepancy. Trial Court observed-"there is absolutely no necessity at this stage". It implies that the court below has not decided the matter finally. But still the Court has rejected the application. Such view and approach of the Trial Court cannot be appreciated. 9. Learned Counsel for opp. patties 9 to 11 has urged that an order refusing to send a writing for Expert examination is not a case decided and accordingly this revision application is not maintainable. In support of such submission reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in Sabitri Debi and Another Vs. Baikuntha Das and Another Manick Chandra Nandy Vs. Debdas Nandy and Others, and AIR 1995 Calcutta 113 M/s. Vinayak Conclave Private Ltd. and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation and Ors. The decision in Manick Chandra Nandy Vs. Debdas Nandy and Others, lays down the well known proposition that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction High Court is not entitled to re-examine or reassess the evidence on record and substitute its own findings in place of those of the subordinate Court. In the present case no question of re-assessment or re-examination of evidence arises and thus said decision is not applicable. In the decision reported in M/s. Vinayak Conclave Private Ltd. and others Vs. In the present case no question of re-assessment or re-examination of evidence arises and thus said decision is not applicable. In the decision reported in M/s. Vinayak Conclave Private Ltd. and others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation and others, a sweeping observation has been made regarding the scope of jurisdiction u/s 115 of the CPC I am unable to persuade myself to agree with such sweeping observation and narrow interpretation of Section 115, CPC If an error of law causing irreparable injury cannot be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the existence of revisions forum is likely to be rendered useless and meaningless. 10. The view expressed by a Single judge in Sabitri Debi and Another Vs. Baikuntha Das and Another, has been made without considering the judgment reported in The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram. The observation made therein was prompted by the consideration that the impropriety or illegality, if any, of the order refusing to send a document for Expert's examination can be raised in appeal u/s 105, CPC In the present case one of the reasons given by the Trial Court is that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to dispute the genuiness of the disputed signature and writing because the said writing Find signature were marked as Exhibits without objection. If that view of the trial court is sustained, the Plaintiffs may not also be allowed to raise same question in appeal. The effect of the impugned order is, therefore, to close their right to dispute the genuineness of the disputed signature and writing for good. Secondly, after the decisions in The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, and State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. Vs. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and others, it cannot be held that the Trial Court adopted the proper and correct approach. In my view the Trial Court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction and such irregularity is likely to occasion a failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the Petitioners. The decision in Sabitri Devi's case is distinguishable. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the Revision is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to reconsider the application of the Petitioners for sending the disputed exhibits for opinion of Hand-writing Expert in accordance with the observations made in this judgment. The decision in Sabitri Devi's case is distinguishable. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the Revision is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to reconsider the application of the Petitioners for sending the disputed exhibits for opinion of Hand-writing Expert in accordance with the observations made in this judgment. Such reconsideration is to be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. If the Court decides to send the disputed writings to Hand-writing Expert, it will fix a time limit within which the report is to be submitted and proceed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Let the order be communicated to the trial Court forthwith. No costs. Final Result : Allowed