HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. Sri N. Subbashastry, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri S. N. Kumarswamy, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Other respondents are served, but none appears. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 29. 7. 1999 delivered by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMF ramanagaram, rejecting the revision petitioners application I. A. VIII filed by the defendant No. 4 in the trial court under Order 26 Rule 10 (A) of Cr. P. C. in Original Suit No - 72/92. ( 3 ) THE Original Suit No. 72/92 had been filed for partition and separate possession by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 for their legitimate share in the suit Property. The defendant No. 4/revision petitioner appears to have asserted his rights alleging that Linge gowda, deceased 2nd defendant in the case, executed a registered will dated 28. 12. 1992 in favour of the present revision petitioner with respect to properties mentioned in Annexure-B. The defendant realised that the law requires him to prove due execution of the will. No doubt, D. W. 1 and 3 have been examined in the suit. But the defendant filed an application for issuance of an expert commission for comparison of the signatures of the deceased defendant No. 2 lingegowda, father of the revision petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Will has to be proved as per requirement of law, but the Court below opined that in absence of a probate, the Will has to be proved before the Court of law every time whenever it is produced in any proceedings. It further observed that in its considered opinion that in view of the death of defendant No. 2 -Lingegowda during the pendency of the suit, filing of I. A. No VIM by 4th defendant in seeking hand writing experts opinion by referring the disputed document ex. D. 2 does not arise since he has to prove the due execution of the document in each and every proceedings whenever the document is produced before the Court unless and until he obtains probate from the competent Court of law. That being so, the 4th respondent has not made out any extraordinary grounds or circumstances for referring the document Ex. That being so, the 4th respondent has not made out any extraordinary grounds or circumstances for referring the document Ex. D. 2 for the hand writing experts opinion and as such, it is not a fit case to appoint hand writing expert as court commissioner as prayed in I. A. VIII by the 4th respondent. Having thus recorded these reasons, the trial Court rejected the revision petitioner's application for appointment of export commission. The defendant No. 4 has come up in revision. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction while rejecting the application as well as illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by its failure to apply its mind to the provisions of Rule 10a and its requisites and the learned Counsel contended that, with all due respects, the trial Court has gone astray by talking about probate. He contended that probate ts not required in view of provisions of Section 57 (A) and (B) of the Indian Succession Act as well as to the will in question in view of Section 213 (2} of the Indian Succession Act. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a Single Judge decision of this court in the case of SRINIVAS vs K. V. SRINIVASA RAO. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents' revision was hotly contested Sri S. N. Kumaraswamy. Sri Kumaraswamy contended that order impugned is an order of interlocutory nature and it does not amounts to be a case decided and therefore revision is not maintainable. He further contended that the trial Court might have committed an error but it is not a jurisdictional error coming within the framework of section 115. The learned Counsel clarified that he does not concede that any error has been committed by the trial Court in rejecting application. He submitted that attesting witnesses have been examined and therefore the petitioner will not suffer if commission is not issued. Therefore revision may be dismissed, Sri Kumaraswamy made reference to two earlier Single Judge's decisions namely decision in the case of KANNA REDDY vs B. SUGUNA and the decision in the case of JAGANAND vs N. C. NARAYAN and contended that the revision is not maintainable and the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with. Therefore revision may be dismissed, Sri Kumaraswamy made reference to two earlier Single Judge's decisions namely decision in the case of KANNA REDDY vs B. SUGUNA and the decision in the case of JAGANAND vs N. C. NARAYAN and contended that the revision is not maintainable and the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with. ( 6 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the parties. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute about the proposition of law that revisional jurisdiction can be called upon for being exercised only on establishment of necessary ingredient namely firstly that the order impugned amounts to a case decided; that the order is not appealable by itself and that order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error and lastly the person invoking the revisional jurisdiction has also to establish the likely substantial injury to be caused to the revision petitioner if order is allowed to remain in existence. ( 8 ) AS regards the first question, whether the order impugned amounts to be a case decided or not, no doubt Single Judge has held and laid down the law in that regard. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of VIJAYA BANK EMPLOYEES HOUSING co-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs SRIN1vas RAJU considered the question in detail and opined that Order 26 of the Civil Procedure code gives a right to a party to have commission issued for the purpose indicated and if the Court rejects application for appointment of the Commission in a case where requirement of appointment of commissioner is satisfied undoubtedly such an order would affect the rights of a party to a suit to adduce the evidence and as such, the order refusing to issue! Commission would amount to be a case decided. It had opined that the revision will be maintainable. This view has been followed in another case by this Court in the case of sree SREEPADARAJA MUTT vs PYRA RAMA1ah AND OTHERS. As such I hold that the order under Order 8a Rule 10-A amounts to a case decided, the preliminary objection as such has to be overruled and so is overruled. ( 9 ) ANOTHER question is, whether the Court below's order refusing to issue expert's commission for examination of signatures of testator on the documents suffers from jurisdictional error. As such I hold that the order under Order 8a Rule 10-A amounts to a case decided, the preliminary objection as such has to be overruled and so is overruled. ( 9 ) ANOTHER question is, whether the Court below's order refusing to issue expert's commission for examination of signatures of testator on the documents suffers from jurisdictional error. A Court can be said to have acted illegally and with material irregularity when it passed an order without applying its mind to the material relevant provisions of law and the present case appears to be like that. Order 26 Rule 10a reads as under:"rule 10a. Commission for scientific investigation. (1) Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court the Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court. (2) The provisions of Rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under Rule 9. " ( 10 ) A reading of this rule clearly indicates that any question arising in a suit involving scientific invesigation which scientific investigation cannot be conveniently conducted before the Court and in case it appears necessary and expedient in the interest of justice to do so in order to do justice to the parties. The discretionary powers have been given to the Court to issue commission directing the commission to enquire into such question and report thereon to the Court. It means that discretionary power has been given to be exercised if the conditions are shown to exist namely the case involves a quest in which requires scientific investigation and the scientific investigation if cannot be conducted in presence of the Court and in the interest of justice and for due and proper decision of the Court if it is necessary to issue the Commission, the Commission has to be issued. ( 11 ) IN the present case, the dispute is about the genuineness of the signatures of the testator on the Will on the basis of which the defendant claims title. ( 11 ) IN the present case, the dispute is about the genuineness of the signatures of the testator on the Will on the basis of which the defendant claims title. The question of signatures as to whether those signatures are of the testator and if admitted signatures have been produced, whether the signature in dispute is of the same person whose signatures are contained on any admitted document. This question has to be scientifically analyzed examined and considered and then hand writing expert has to give his opinion after scientifically testing the same. It requires a specialised skill and scientific knowledge to give opinion on that subject. So such a question can definitely be said to involve scientific investigation. When I so observe, I find support from a Division Bench decision also of the orissa High Court in the case ot NATABAR BEHERA vs batakrishna DAS. Hon'ble P. C. Misra, J as he then was, placed to observe as under. "scientific examination means ascertainment by observation and experiment critically tested systematised and brought under a set of principles. Comparison of a disputed signature with the admitted ones involves specialised skill based on study It, therefore, comes within the scientific investigation and cannot be done by a layman without having the scientific knowledge and specialisation on the subject. " ( 12 ) THE Court below in the present case no doubt has been correct in opining that if probate is not obtained, the document may have to be proved in every proceeding where it is relied. But, that could not be the reason to refuse the application of the revision petitioner for appointment of an expert commissioner to compare the signatures on that Will, with the admitted signatures. The provisions of obtaining the probate may not be applicable to the cases of Wills executed by a Hindu, if the said Will does not come within the classes of the Wills specified in Section 57 (a) and (b ). The provisions of obtaining the probate may not be applicable to the cases of Wills executed by a Hindu, if the said Will does not come within the classes of the Wills specified in Section 57 (a) and (b ). Section 57 specifies the Wills to which previsions may apply are, the Wills made by any Hindus, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which were subject to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of judicature at Madras and Bombay or in cases where Wills are made outside those territories to the extent they relate to the properties situated within the limits of territories of Bengal, Madras and Bombay and not others, In the case of SRINIVAS AND OTHERS vs k. V. SRINIVASA RAO it has been laid down that,"a reading of Clause (a) of Section 57 read with Section 213 makes it clear that it could only apply to cases when the property or properties bequeathed are situate in the territories mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 57 of the Act. "it further laid it down that if properties and persons who may be hindus are outside the territory mentioned under Section 57 (a), the provisions of Section 213 are not attracted and on that basis, the court held that provisions of Section 213 did not apply to the Wills like the present one. ( 13 ) IN this view of the matter, there was no question of Section 213 being applied. There was no question of probate. The Court below appears to have rejected the application for commission on this erroneous view. Really the Court having failed to apply its mind to the relevant ingredients of Order 26 Rule 10 of Code of Civil procedure and by taking an erroneous view of Section 213, it has illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting the application I. A. VIII moved by the defendant/revision petitioner. The order of the Court below has got a tendency to cause injustice and irreparable injury. Every party has got a right to prove his case. No doubt, in case of Will, one attesting witness has to be produced. But in addition to avoid doubt for genuineness etc. The order of the Court below has got a tendency to cause injustice and irreparable injury. Every party has got a right to prove his case. No doubt, in case of Will, one attesting witness has to be produced. But in addition to avoid doubt for genuineness etc. , of document, the handwriting expert's evidence is required to make scientific test and to report about the signature of the testator in the document. If it is not allowed, definitely the revision petitioner will suffer irreparably in course of the trial of the case and further rejection would have resulted multiplicity of legal proceedings. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. The revision petition is allowed. I. A. VIII is allowed The trial Court to refer the disputed signatures along with the admitted signatures for verification and examination scientifically and for report. The parties of the revision are to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .