JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) - Notice of this revision was sent to the respondent. As reported by the Registry, respondent has been duly served. None appears. He is set ex parte. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Petitioners are plaintiffs in the suit for possession of the shop shown as red in the site plan claiming to be the owners of the shop. It has been alleged that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and a rent note dated June 30, 3002, was also executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners. It is further mentioned that the defendant could not carry on the business and possession of the shop was surrendered after receiving Rs. 35,000/- from the plaintiff through a cheque dated October 19, 2004. The defendant also executed a receipt on the same date acknowledging receipt of the amount and surrender of possession. According to the allegations made in the plaint, the defendant, thereafter, forcibly took over the possession of the shop on October 24, 2004, with the help of anti-social elements and in connivance with the police demanding more money. 4. The defendant denied the execution of the rent note and also the receipts (Exs. P-18 & 19). Though, the evidence has been led to prove these documents. The plaintiff also moved an application under Section 45/73 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking a direction for personal appearance of the defendant in the Court for giving his thumb impressions and specimen signatures for comparison with the disputed documents by the Expert. 5. This application was resisted by other side. The defendant refused to give his signatures as also thumb impressions. 6. The trial Court accordingly, vide the impugned order dismissed the application on the sole ground that the defendant is unwilling to give his specimen signatures and thumb impressions. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It may be useful to refer to Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, which are reproduced hereunder :- "Section 45. Opinions of experts. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It may be useful to refer to Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, which are reproduced hereunder :- "Section 45. Opinions of experts. - When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in-questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger imperssions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. (a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of the experts upon the questions whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts, which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c) The question is whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of the experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant. Section 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. - In order to ascertain whether 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. [This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger- impressions]." 9. Section 45 empowers the Court to rely upon opinion of handwriting expert and such opinion is a relevant fact. Section 73 further empowers the Court to compare signatures or writing of any person and also to direct any person present in the Court to write any word or figure to enable the Court to compare the same with the words and figures alleged to have been written by the person who is stated to have written the document. The mere fact that a person is unwilling, does not in any manner, dis-empower the Court from issuing appropriate direction or to secure his signatures or thumb impressions. The issue is no more res integra having been concluded by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Guru Nanak Construction Company v. M/s. Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills, Jaitu, 1976 Current Law Journal (Civil) 447, wherein following observations have been made :- "The power nuder Section 73 of the Act can be exercised for issuing directions to any persons present in Court. The proviso to Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided that though a party is appearing by a recognised agent or by a pleader in a case, the Court can always direct a party to appear in Court in person when the need arises. Therefore, the combined reading of proviso to Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes it abundantly clear that in a proper case, the Court has got power to direct the person concerned to appear and give his signatures and hand-writing so that the comparison can be made in order to arrive at the correct conclusion as to whether the disputed documents were signed or written by the person who denied to have done so." 10. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and un-ambiguous language of Section 73, it becomes apparent that directions of the Court are not dependent upon the willingness of the party whose signatures or thumb impressions is sought to be procured for the purpose of comparison by the expert. The Court in appropriate case can issue directions to a party to the lis to give his signatures and/or thumb impressions for comparison and expert opinion. 11. This revision, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated May 21, 2007, is hereby set aside. The defendant is directed to appear before the trial Court and give his thumb impressions as also signatures for comparison by the expert. The petitioner will appear on the date already fixed before the trial Court. The trial Court will implement this order by issuing appropriate direction to the defendant to appear before it and give his thumb impressions and signatures for comparison by the expert. Petition allowed.