JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner is the plaintiff and has filed the suit for a declaration, praying that the sale deed dated 18.5.91 executed by the defendant No. 1, through Power of Attorney holders defendant Nos. 2 and 3, in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 is illegal and a void document. The facts, as culled out from the writ petition in brief is, that the suit was filed in the year 1991 and, all these years, the suit could not proceed as it was bogged down in a controversy as to whether the suit was maintainable or not. It has come on record that the trial Court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. which was set aside in the appeal, and thereafter, the matter came to the High Court where it was affirmed, and consequently, after all this exercise, the suit has now proceeded. At the present moment, the stage is set for the leading of the evidence by the parties and, in this scenario, the defendants filed a certified copy of the power of attorney executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, on 16.2.2008. It is relevant to state here that the plaintiff had alleged several grounds in the plaint for declaring the sale deed to be a void and an illegal document but had not challenged it on the ground that the power of attorney was a forged or a fictitious document. But when the power of attorney was actually filed in the Court and the same was examined by the plaintiff, at that stage, an applicalion for amendment of the plaint, was filed to incorporate paragraph 5 (I) after para 5(H) in the plaint to the effect that the power of attorney executed by the defendant No. 1, was a forged and a fraudulent document and fabricated by the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and that the defendant No. 1 had not executed any power of attorney nor had signed the said document. This application, after contest, was allowed by the trial Court, by an order dated 14.7.2008 and necessary amendment has been incorporated in the plaint. The said order, for the time being, has become final inter se between the parties. This application, after contest, was allowed by the trial Court, by an order dated 14.7.2008 and necessary amendment has been incorporated in the plaint. The said order, for the time being, has become final inter se between the parties. The paragraph, which has been incorporated in the plaint reads as under : "That the alleged general power of attorney dated 18.4.1991 alleged to be executed by late Dina Nath Raina is false, farzi and fraudulent document and fabricated by the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 to grab the property in suit. Late Dina Nath Raina did not reside at 15/1 Balbir Road, Dehradun, and has not signed and executed any such Power of Attorney so the sale deed dated 10.5.1991 becomes fraudulent and illegal document. Fraud has been played by the defendant Nos. 2 to 5, so much, so that the Vakalatnama, written statement and Counter Affidavit, notice dated 1.7.1992 filed in the name of late Dina Nath Raina has not been signed and filed by late Dina Nath Raina and the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are liable to be punished and prosecuted for perjury under Section 340, Cr.P.C.” 2. Based on the aforesaid amendment, the plaintiff moved an application dated 23.7.2008, i.e., within 10 days, praying that he may be permitted to produce an expert evidence. The plaintiff contended that the power of attorney had not been executed by the defendant No. 1 and, that the signatures appended on the said document was forged and that this crucial fact could only be proved by an expert evidence. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that he may be permitted to get an expert opinion in the matter. This application was opposed by the defendants and the trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application, by an order dated 12.8.2008. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, filed a revision which was also dismissed by an order dated 17.9.2008. The plaintiff has now filed the writ petition for the quashing of these orders and for appropriate direction to the trial Court. 3. Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Udai Chandani, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Shashi Nandan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 4. 3. Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Udai Chandani, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Shashi Nandan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 4. The basic ground of rejection by the Courts below is, that the application filed by the plaintiff for the production of an expert evidence, has only been filed to delay the proceedings and that no steps whatsoever was taken by the plaintiff to raise this issue or to file an expert opinion in the last 16 years. 5. As has been stated herein above, the plaintiff, had attacked the validity of the sale deed executed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 on a variety of grounds and had not attacked it on the ground that the power of attorney executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, was a forged and a fictitious document. This ground was specifically raised after the power of attorney was filed by the defendants in February 2008 through an amendment application which was allowed by the trial Court in July 2008. Thereafter an application for expert evidence was filed within 10 days of the amendment application being allowed. Consequently, in the opinion of the Court, there is no delay on the part of the plaintiff in moving the said application. The finding on this aspect given by the Court below is not correct. 6. The quesion whether the said application was bona fide or not and ought to have been allowed or not by the Court below is the basic question which is required to be answered. 7. Section 45 of the Evidence Act indicates that where the Court has to form an opinion as to the identity of the handwriting on a document, the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in such matter becomes a relevant fact. The power of attorney executed by defendant No. 1 can be proved by a variety of methods, such as, the signatures and handwriting of the said defendant from other admitted documents and then comparing it and forming an opinion. Alternatively, expert opinion can also be taken. The opinion of an expert is only an evidence of opinion and is not decisive or conclusive. It is not a substantive evidence. Alternatively, expert opinion can also be taken. The opinion of an expert is only an evidence of opinion and is not decisive or conclusive. It is not a substantive evidence. The opinion of the expert can be relied by the plaintiff when the opinion is supported by other corroborative evidence. The handwriting experts’ opinion only corroborate the internal or external evidence that comes on the record, as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 2200 , Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Further, such evidence has to be received by the Court with great caution and may be accepted, if it is corroborated by other evidence supporting the view of the expert. 8. Evidence to support the plaint allegation is by way of filing documents and proving it by way of oral evidence. Opinion of an expert is an aid to corroborate the other evidence on that point and, as stated earlier, it is not conclusive in nature. The law prescribes that substantial justice has to be made by the Court. That is the legal system of our country but could the plaintiff be ousted on this count by not permitting him to lead the evidence by production of an expert evidence or should an opportunity be given to the plaintiff to prove his case. 9. Before proceeding, it could be relevant to take a look into certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. provides for the production of documents of which the plaintiffs sues or relies upon. Sub-clause (3) of Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. provides that a document not filed in the list could not be produced or received in evidence subsequently except with the leave of the Court and that the Court on sufficient cause can accept the document at a later stage if it finds relevant to the issue. This power has been given to the Court to ensure that substantial justice is done between the parties. Similarly, Order 16 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. provides furnishing a list of wItnesses who are likely to give evidence and such list is required to be filed within a stipulated period immediately after the settlement of the issues. This power has been given to the Court to ensure that substantial justice is done between the parties. Similarly, Order 16 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. provides furnishing a list of wItnesses who are likely to give evidence and such list is required to be filed within a stipulated period immediately after the settlement of the issues. Sub-clause (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 also provides that the Court may for reasons to be recorded, summon a witness whose name was not found in the list on sufficient cause being shown. Order 16 Rule 1-A of the C.P.C. provides that any party to the suit may bring any witness without applying any summon under Rule 1 to give evidence or to produce documents. Similarly, under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., documents are filed and relied by the parties, the proof and admissibility of such documents so filed along with affidavit is subject to such orders of the Court. 10. These provisions which have been elaborated above, show that a mechanism or methodology has been provided to produce documents or to lead oral evidence and that the said provisions does not shut out a party if a document or the name of the witness is not filed or led at the stage when it was required to do so. Documents can be filed at a later stage and witnesses can be called and even at a subsequent stage and, in both cases, the leave of the Court has to be taken which can only be granted on sufficient cause being shown. The idea behind this is, that substantial justice must be made between the parties and this is a laudable feature of our judicial system and which is reflected in the aforesaid provisions. In my opinion, the approach of the Court in such matters should not be to defeat the ends of justice nor cause undue delay in the litigation between the parties. 11. In the light of the aforesaid, failure to allow the plaintiff to bring on record the expert opinion, in my opinion, would only affect the quality of his evidence which, at the present moment, is still to be led by the parties. 11. In the light of the aforesaid, failure to allow the plaintiff to bring on record the expert opinion, in my opinion, would only affect the quality of his evidence which, at the present moment, is still to be led by the parties. The trial Court should not normally shut and close the evidence of the parties, unless the conduct of the parties was contumacious or there was serious laches on the part of the parties. The trial Court should exercise its discretion in such a manner which would advance the cause of justice. The trial Court may reject an application for evidence, where it finds that the parties were circumventing the process of the Court or were not allowing the Court to proceed with the matter. 12. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the finding that the application was moved in order to delay the proceedings is patently misconceived. No occasion arose for the plaintiff to move such an application prior to February 2008, inasmuch as the said power of attorney was not brought on the record. This document was only filed by the defendants in February 2008 and immediately thereafter the amendment application was filed for adding a ground namely, that the power of attorney has neither been signed by the defendant No.1 nor has it been executed by the defendant No.1. This application was allowed by an order of the trial Court in July 2008 and immediately thereafter the application was filed to lead an expert evidence on this count, namely, an expert opinion who is well versed with the science of calligraphy. 13. In my opinion, there has been no delay whatsoever on the part of the plaintiff in moving the application. The production of an expert opinion is another form for bringing a certain kind of evidence before the Court and in my opinion the petitioner should not be shut out from producing such an expert opinion. It would have been a different matter, if the evidence had been led and the matter was ripe for hearing but that stage has not come. Evidence is still to be led and the plaintiff has filed the present application to give an opinion of an expert on the genuineness of that document. 14. In my opinion, the plaintiffs should have been permitted to lead such evidence. Evidence is still to be led and the plaintiff has filed the present application to give an opinion of an expert on the genuineness of that document. 14. In my opinion, the plaintiffs should have been permitted to lead such evidence. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel placed a photostat copy of the order sheet dated 28.3.2007 wherein issue No. 1 was framed, namely, whether the sale deed dated 10.5.91 was liable to be cancelled on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint. One such allegation is, that the power of attorney has not been executed or signed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and therefore, the sale deed could not have been executed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the defendant Nos. 4 and 5. 15. In my opinion, in the light of the provision of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, opinion of an expert could at some stage become a relevant fact. That stage has not as yet arrived but the Court could foresee such a situation but has unnecessarily closed the door of the plaintiff by rejecting his application and not permitting him to lead the evidence. 16. It was also urged by the respondents that against the order of the trial Court, no revision was maintainable since it was only an interlocutory matter and that no issue was finally decided and consequently the present writ petition was not maintainable. In my opinion, the Court is not going into this technicality since it finds that there would be a failure of justice, if the plaintiff is shut out from producing his evidence and consequently this Court is justified in interfering in a writ jurisdiction and issuing a writ of certiorari and the directions. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to take on record the expert opinion to be filed by the plaintiff within three weeks from today. 18. Considering the facts that the suit is, of the year 1991, I also direct the trial Court to expeditiously conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order and parties are directed not to take undue adjournment before the trial Court. 19. 18. Considering the facts that the suit is, of the year 1991, I also direct the trial Court to expeditiously conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order and parties are directed not to take undue adjournment before the trial Court. 19. A certified copy of this order shall be made available to the parties on payment of usual cost within two weeks. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own cost. ————