Judgment : Defendants in O.S.No.107 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judges Court at Nagercoil, are the revision petitioners. Suit filed by the respondent was one for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Execution of the agreement was denied by the petitioners. 2. Evidence was taken and after four witnesses were examined on the side of plaintiff, an interlocutory application was filed as I.A.No.107 of 1998 for sending the agreement for sale for getting an expert opinion regarding signature, They want the signature to be compared with the admitted signature in certain documents executed prior to the institution of the suit. 3. The same was seriously opposed by the plaintiff by filing the counter. 4. Lower court by the impugned order dismissed the application which is challenged in this revision. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the lower court while dismissing the application has said that if necessary it can compare the signature. Counsel submitted that this approach by the trial court is not accepted by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The argument is that the court should not play the role of an expert when it has no special knowledge. 6. As against the said contention, counsel for the respondent submitted that under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act, court is competent to compare the signature though it may be an expert. It also argued that only after the entire evidence is over, application was filed by the defendant which shows that it has no bona fides. It is further argued that if the plaintiff does not want the signature to be proved by an expert, the defendants need not taken up the burden and the plaintiff takes the risk. 7. It is true that in Q.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran Q.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran Q.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran , (1996)2 S.C.C. 704 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the court should avoid comparing the signature and should not play the role of an expert, I do not think that principle is applicable in civil cases. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with on election matter where the allegation was regarding corrupt practice, impersonation etc. In election cases, the proof beyond doubt will have to be adduced, But in the civil cases, the decision is based on preponderance of probabilities. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with on election matter where the allegation was regarding corrupt practice, impersonation etc. In election cases, the proof beyond doubt will have to be adduced, But in the civil cases, the decision is based on preponderance of probabilities. Even in the criminal cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has compared the signature and upheld the conviction and the same has been reported in Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka , (1997)7 S.C.C. 110 . In judgment paras.36 to 39 will answer the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. They read thus: “36. The original records were also placed before us and we have perused those records. Since the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had not stayed in” Ashoka Lodge“, we looked into the” Register of Lodgers“. It contains the relevant entry against which the signature of the appellant also appears. His signature also appears on the” Vakalatnama’ filed by him in this appeal. In the presence of the learned counsel for the parties, we compared the signature of the appellant on the “Vakalatnama” with the signature in the “Register of Lodgers”. A mere look at the signatures was enough to indicate the similarity which was so apparent that it required no expert evidence. This comparison was done by us having regard to the provisions of Sec.73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which provides as under: “73. Comparison of signature writing or seal with others admitted or proved. - In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.” 37. This section consists of two parts. While the first part provides for comparison of signature, finger impression, writing etc. This section consists of two parts. While the first part provides for comparison of signature, finger impression, writing etc. allegedly written or made by a person with signature or writing etc. admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written by the same person, the second part empowers the court to direct any person including an accused, present in court, to give his specimen writing or fingerprints for the purpose of enabling the court to compare it with the writing or signature allegedly made by that person. The section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Sec.45 or by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Sec.47 or by the court itself. 38. As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Sec.73 of the Act. (See: State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram). 39. We have already recorded above that on the comparison of the signature in the “Register of Lodgers” with the appellants signature on the “Vakalatnama”, we have not found any dissilarity and are convinced that the appellant himself had signed the “Register of Lodgers” in taken of having Room No.113 in “Ashoka Lodge” on rent wherein he had stayed with his wife and the child. “ 8. A learned Judge of this Court has also taken a similar view reported in Arul Jothi & Co. v. Sri Shanmugha Trading Co. Arul Jothi & Co. v. Sri Shanmugha Trading Co. Arul Jothi & Co. v. Sri Shanmugha Trading Co. , (1998)1 C.T.C. 432 . 9. There is nothing wrong in comparing the signature by court. By comparing the signature the court is not playing the role of an expert. But it is only assessing the evidence which has already been adduced about the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. 10. Arul Jothi & Co. v. Sri Shanmugha Trading Co. , (1998)1 C.T.C. 432 . 9. There is nothing wrong in comparing the signature by court. By comparing the signature the court is not playing the role of an expert. But it is only assessing the evidence which has already been adduced about the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel. the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the guanineness of Ex.A-1. agreement for sale. If the plaintiff does not want that the document is sent for the expert opinion and if he opposes such a request of the petitioners, the court can take adverse inference if the circumstances warrant. 11. I also find that the application was filed without any bona fide when the entire evidence of the plaintiff is over. As rightly found by the lower court that if only application was filed earlier before the trial, the plaintiff would also given opportunity to adduce counter-evidence. That opportunity will be taken away even an expert opinion is called for at this stage. At this stage, counsel submitted that after expert opinion is received, the plaintiff can very well adduce counter-evidence. What the petitioners now went to reopen the entire matter. I do not think it is feasible nor it is necessary in these circumstances. 12. In the result,the C.R.P. has no merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.11576 of 1999 is closed.