JUDGMENT 1. Though the substitution of the legal heirs of the opposite party No.1 was allowed by the order dated 16th August, 2000 and, accordingly, the cause title was corrected by the Department but further application has been filed praying the same relief. Since the parties are already on record in view of the order dated 16th August, 2000, this application being C.A.N. No. 3333 of 2000 is rejected. 2. To avoid any doubt I make it clear that due to such rejection of the application for substitution filed by the opposite parties, it does not mean that the opposite parties have no legal right further to agitate the matter for being substituted in the Court below in place of the original applicant in the probate proceeding with the prayer for necessary change of the proceeding to Letters of Administration in accordance with law. Such point is kept open for decision of the Court below as per law. 3. Now the revisional application is taken up for hearing. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 of O.S. No 2 of 1980 of the Court of 6th Additional District Judge, Alipore has challenged the order dated 30th April, 1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore whereby the application of the defendants praying for an opinion from the expert of the C.I.D.. West Bengal relating to the disputed signature in the Will was rejected only on the ground that though such prayer was earlier allowed on 18th April, 1986 but due to non-payment of fees the scaled cover came back from the C.I.D. Office in the year 1987 and after long lapse of so many years in the year 1990, the defendant has approached the Court on said issue. In the impugned order further ground was taken that already as per prayer of the plaintiff by the order dated 15th January, 1990 Government Examiner Questioned Documents, Government or India Office at 30, Gora Chand Road, Calcutta 700 014 was appointed to examine the documents and such report since was received by the Court on examination of the witnesses concerned, the prayer of the defendant was not tenable. On simple scrutiny of the order-sheet of the learned Court below as produced by the learned Advocate of the substituted opposite party a very .surprising fact is revealed, which itself will satisfy that the impugned order is erroneous and is an order by not applying the mind by the Court below. Lis was centering round in this probate proceeding about authenticity of the signature in the Will in question. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the revisioners herein approached the Court for an order for examination of such signature by the Director of Questioned Documents Examiner Bureau, C.I.D. of West Bengal, Bhabani Bhavan and such prayer was allowed by the order dated 13th June, 1986 by the learned Court below. The said authority of C.I.D., West Bengal was directed to intimate the cost as would be required for comparing the seven signatures of alleged Krishna Narayan Bhattacharya appearing in the Will with the admitted twelve signatures of the executants appearing in the counterfoil of the rent receipt. By the order dated 20th August, 1986, the learned Court below directed the defendants to deposit Rs.87/- towards the fees and cost of such examination by the handwriting expert and such amount was deposited on 21st November, 1986. By the order dated 8th May, 1987 on the basis of the reply from the Director, Questioned Documents Examination Bureau, C.I.D., Government of West Bengal requesting the Court for sending relevant documents for examination the records were sent. However, the said Bureau of C.I.D., West Bengal charged a total sum of Rs 279/- towards cost of examination of the documents and by the order dated 24th August, 1987, the Court directed the defendants to deposit further sum of Rs.192/- as Rs. 87/- was already deposited as per the first requisition of the said Bureau. Thereafter, from the order-sheet, it reveals that there was transfer of presiding officer and ultimately by a further order dated 20th March, 1989, the defendants were directed to deposit Rs. 192/- towards cost positively by 18th April, 1989 and such was deposited by the defendants as it appears from the order dated 18th April, 1989 of the learned Court below. On 23rd November, 1989, the plaintiff filed an application praying for direction upon the said Bureau, C.I.D. of West Bengal to submit the report and the matter was fixed for hearing on 15th January, 1990. On 23rd November, 1989, the plaintiff filed an application praying for direction upon the said Bureau, C.I.D. of West Bengal to submit the report and the matter was fixed for hearing on 15th January, 1990. However, very surprisingly despite the order dated 20th March, 1989 directing the defendants to deposit Rs. 192/- and in spite of such payment of money by the defendants on 18th April, 1989 as well as fixation of matter for direction to the said authority as per prayer of the plaintiff also by fixing the same by 15th January, 1990, plaintiff's prayer on 15th January, 1990 was allowed for examination of the questioned documents by Government of India Examiner, 30, Gora Chand Road, Calcutta-700 014 and letter was sent to the said authority to intimate the cost of such purpose. On 30th March, 1990 as no reply was received the matter was adjourned to 22nd May, 1990. Again on 22nd May, 1990, the matter was adjourned on the same reason. Since Government Examiner of Government of India did not intimate the cost, matter was fixed to 20th June, 1990 for orders. However, on 20th June, 1990 without any payment of such cost, it appears that the report of the Government Examiner aforesaid was placed to Court and the same was considered by the Court. This document and the witness concerned was examined and cross-examined relating to such document. Hence, from the aforesaid order, it is clear that the observation of the learned Court below in the impugned order that the defendants since did not deposit the money in time relating to the cost for examination of the said documents by the C.I.D., West Bengal, the sealed cover came back long in the year 1987 and the defendant approached the Court in the year 1990, is not the true state of affairs. The order reveals that the learned Court below in view of the subsequent requisition of the said Bureau, C.I.D., West Bengal for further cost of Rs. 192/- directed the defendant to deposit the money by order dated 20th March, 1989 positively by 18th April, 1989 and such amount was deposited by the defendant on 18th April, 1989. The order reveals that the learned Court below in view of the subsequent requisition of the said Bureau, C.I.D., West Bengal for further cost of Rs. 192/- directed the defendant to deposit the money by order dated 20th March, 1989 positively by 18th April, 1989 and such amount was deposited by the defendant on 18th April, 1989. Hence, the reasoning as made that due to the defendant's laches the documents could not be examined by the C.I.D. of West Bengal is not true state of affairs and such finding of the learned Court below is contrary to the orders of the learned Court below. Furthermore, when the matter was fixed on 15th January, 1990 as per prayer of the plaintiff for necessary direction to the said Bureau of C.I.D., West Bengal to expedite the matter of sending reports, it is really surprising that without completing the said process, the learned Court below passed a new order directing the Government Examiner, Government of India to examine the documents allowing the prayer of the plaintiff. From the order-sheet of the learned Court below nowhere it appears that the earlier order of the Court directing the Bureau of C.I.D. of West Bengal to examine the documents was recalled and, furthermore, when the defendant complied such direction of the Court relating to the deposit of the cost as per Court's direction by 18th April, 1989, in my view, the matter was required to be dealt with, accordingly, by the learned Court below when such factum was brought to the notice of the Court by the plaintiff on 15th January, 1990, irrespective of the fact that as per the prayer of the plaintiff, a report came from another authority. Examination of handwriting is based on a scientific process and for the purpose of revealing the truth nobody can take plea of prejudice if another expert body is directed to examine the same documents. Furthermore, when there is already an order of Court long back in the year 1986 directing the Bureau, C.I.D. of West Bengal to examine the documents and as per their requisition Rs. Furthermore, when there is already an order of Court long back in the year 1986 directing the Bureau, C.I.D. of West Bengal to examine the documents and as per their requisition Rs. 87/- was duly deposited by the defendant and, subsequently, further money was deposited as per further requisition of the said authority, it was incumbent upon the learned Court below to complete its process otherwise people will lose faith over institution itself and that will cause injury in general to the public. The learned Court below, accordingly, came to an erroneous finding and passed an order which is not based on records but the same was contrary to the records and as such the revisional Court has the jurisdiction to interfere with the matter in such situation. Hence, the impugned order which is nothing but non-application of mind by the learned Court below and non-consideration of the earlier order as passed, is hereby set aside and quashed and the learned Court below is, accordingly, directed to complete the process of judicial orders as passed in different times right from 13th June, 1986 allowing the prayer of the defendants for examination of the documents by the said Bureau of C.I.D., West Bengal and deposit of such money as per order dated 20th March, 1989, the learned Court below itself by sending documents to the said Bureau of C.I.D., West Bengal for report of examination of the said disputed documents within two weeks from the date of receiving of the record and on receiving the report to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. The revisional application is, accordingly, allowed. There will be no order as to costs.