Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order date 18.02.2005 by which the trial Court rejected the petitioner’s objection against taking on record the report of the handwriting expert produced by the non-petitioner. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the non-petitioner obtained a report of handwriting export of a receipt, which is subject matter in the suit and sought permission to produce the said report in the Court. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, no report of the handwriting export can be admitted in evidence and taken on record unless the report is obtain with the leave of the Court. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Court may permit handwriting expert to take the copies of the documents for the purpose of comparison and examination by the expert. Report obtained from the expert with the leave of the Court alone can be admitted in the evidence. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, as per second clause of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the Court may direct any person to writ any word or figure for enabling the Court to compare the words. 3. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived, firstly because of the reason that Section 73 has no application and Section 73 is provision empowering the Court itself to compare handwriting, signature or seal etc. For that purpose, the Court has also been empowered to direct any person present in the Court to write any word or figure for enabling the Court to compare the words or figures. Right of the parties to suit to get the opinion of expert and produce such report in Court are not governed by Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the right to produce evidence itself , the party has a right to produce the oral as well as documentary evidence and has a right to produce the expert opinion in support of his case and to destroy others case and for that purpose if the party has sufficient material with him, he himself may obtain the opinion of the expert. The credibility of the document and the manner in which the document was produced or was compared can only be relevant questions for the purpose of deciding the credibility of the evidence (opinion report) and has nothing to do with the admissibility of the document. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act also provides that the opinion of the person specifically skilled to opine on the identity of the handwriting or finger impression shall be admissible in evidence. This right is available to both the parties to proceeding and, therefore, if one party produces expert’s report, the other party may challenge the report on the grounds mentioned above as well as by producing report of his own expert. 4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.