Judgment : 1. This Court while admitting the Civil Revision Petition on 28-12-2007 granted interim stay for a limited period which was subsequently extended for a further limited period and on 2-5-2008 after making an elaborate order, the learned Judge extended the same until further orders and directed the Civil Revision Petition to appear in the list on the reopening day after summer vacation. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved of the docket order dated 28-11-2007 made in I.A.No.796/2007 in O.S.No.535/2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said order was made by the learned Judge closing the said application recording certain reasons. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge by order dated 20-8-2007 allowed the I.A. for obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert by sending the same to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad to examine the admitted subsequent signatures and to file the opinion. The learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 28-11-2007 recorded: “It is stated that this petition is filed earlier to the opinion given by APSFL on the questioned document in the criminal court and it is ordered after opinion is filed. So, now referring the same document for examination by same expert who has given opinion became unnecessary. The expert can be examined and the C.C. of report can be marked in evidence. Therefore this petition is closed. Refund the amount deposited, to the petitioner on a cheque petition is ordered”. 3. C.R.P.M.P.No.5067/2008 praying for permission to raise additional grounds had been allowed by this Court today. 4. Sri M. Chandra Sekhar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner would maintain that it may be that the Apex Court might have given a direction to dispose of the suit early. That does not mean the original Court can make illegal or unsustainable orders in undue haste. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it is not as though this application to send the document to the expert to compare with the admitted signatures had been moved by the Revision Petitioner. The said application was moved by the respondents and an order was invited. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it is not as though this application to send the document to the expert to compare with the admitted signatures had been moved by the Revision Petitioner. The said application was moved by the respondents and an order was invited. The learned Counsel also would point out that virtually this is a consent order for the reason that no counter affidavit had been filed by the Revision Petitioner opposing the application and when an order had been made and when the document to be sent to an expert for the purpose of comparing the signatures with the other admitted signatures and to file opinion, whether it is an order made suo motu by the Court or on hearing the Counsel representing the opposing parties when a right had accrued to the party i.e., sending the document to be examined by an expert and obtaining an expert opinion, that too on the consent of both the parties, such order cannot be recalled or modified without putting the petitioner on notice and without giving opportunity and without hearing the Revision Petitioner. The learned Counsel also would maintain that this is a clerical or arithmetical mistake and in view of Section 152 or 151 of the Civil Code of Procedure, the same can be brought in aid of such an order and hence the same is unsustainable. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to certain illustrations appended to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and also further pointed out that as far as the investigation of the criminal case and under what circumstances the said opinion had been obtained the same being not within the knowledge of the Revision Petitioner that cannot be introduced as a ground while making such a suo motu order. Hence, the learned Counsel would maintain that when even by virtue of an interlocutory order, a right had accrued to a party, that too by a consent order, the same cannot be taken away by the Court without putting the adverse party also on notice. Hence, viewed from any angle, the order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. Hence, viewed from any angle, the order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. Per contra, Smt. Jayanthi, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would maintain that though it was recorded that the Counsel was heard, in fact, the docket order was made suo motu by the Court especially in the light of the directions of the Apex Court to dispose of the suit at an early date. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the application was not moved by the Revision Petitioner. The application was filed by the respondents and such order made on the application made by the respondents if recalled or modified, the petitioner is not in any way prejudiced. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 152 and 151 of the Civil Code of Procedure. Further, the learned Counsel also placed before this Court the order made in S.L.P.No.8140/2007 and the opinion already expressed by the self-same expert dated 24-2-2007, no doubt in relation to Crime No.931/2006 of Banjara Hills Police Station and also the order made in C.M.A.No.283/2007 as well. 6. Heard the Counsel and perused the relevant orders. 7. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order made on 28-11-2007 as Docket order in I.A.No.796/2007 in O.S.No.535/2006. The said order reads as hereunder:- “Heard Mrs. Jayanthi, learned Counsel for petitioner. It is stated that this petition is filed earlier to the opinion given by APSFL on the on the questioned document in the criminal court and it is ordered after opinion is filed. So, now referring the same document for examination by same expert who has given opinion became unnecessary. The expert can be examined and the C.C. of report can be marked in evidence. Therefore this petition is closed. Refund the amount deposited, to the petitioner on a cheque petition is ordered”. The order made by the learned Judge dated 20-8-2007 reads as hereunder:- “Perused the pleadings. The MOU dated 27-10-2000 relied upon by plaintiff (respondent) in the suit is disputed by the petitioner who is D.1 in the suit. As the opinion of handwriting expert is relevant though not substantive evidence, the request of the petitioner to send the questioned signature to expert is justifiable. Hence the petition is allowed. Send the questioned document to Director, F.S.L., Hyderabad with admitted signatures. As the opinion of handwriting expert is relevant though not substantive evidence, the request of the petitioner to send the questioned signature to expert is justifiable. Hence the petition is allowed. Send the questioned document to Director, F.S.L., Hyderabad with admitted signatures. Both sides to file admitted/specimen signatures and for making time 10-09-2007. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- tentatively towards fee of A.P.S.F.L.” 8. It may be that the self-same expert in relation to the self-same document might have expressed some opinion in relation to a criminal proceeding. Certain facts relating thereto also are put into controversy by the parties. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the said aspect. 9. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with Opinions of experts and Illustration (c) says: “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 experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.” Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Jayalakshmi Coelho Vs. Oswald Joseph Coelho ( 2001(4) S.C.C. 181 ) wherein the Apex Court held that when the mistake or accidental slip had been committed by the Court, the Court has inherent power to rectify the same. 10. In Kishore Chandra Singh Deo Vs. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagatair ( AIR 1954 S.C. 316 ) while dealing with the question whether a particular letter was written by A it was held that the conclusions based on mere comparison of handwriting must, at best, be indecisive, and yield to positive evidence. Reliance also had been placed on Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Shri Maharaj Krishna Sharma and others ( AIR 1973 S.C. 1346 ) and also on State of Gujarat Vs. Vinay Chandra ( AIR 1967 S.C. 778 ). Reliance also was placed on the decision of this Court in Renuka Devi Kedia Vs. Seetha Devi ( 2004(5) A.L.D. 700 ). 11. No doubt, certain submissions were made relating to the date of M.O.U. and the date when the document was proposed to be sent to an expert for the purpose of comparison with the other admitted signatures. Reliance also was placed on the decision of this Court in Renuka Devi Kedia Vs. Seetha Devi ( 2004(5) A.L.D. 700 ). 11. No doubt, certain submissions were made relating to the date of M.O.U. and the date when the document was proposed to be sent to an expert for the purpose of comparison with the other admitted signatures. It is pertinent to note that both the parties at a particular point of time consented and invited an order and when such consent order is to be recalled by the Court, always it would be just and proper to hear both the parties while recalling, modifying or reviewing such an order. It is pertinent to note that this is a consent order. When a consent order is made, it should be taken that it is an order in favour of both the parties. To contend that at the instance of this respondent’s application only such an order had been made and hence no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, cannot hold water. In this view of the matter, the order impugned cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. It is no doubt true that there are directions by the Apex Court for early disposal of the suit. It is also no doubt true that the Court is bound to obey such directions. However, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the matter is remitted to the learned Judge to put the Revision Petitioner also on notice, hear both the parties and make an order in accordance with law in the light of the respective submissions which may be made by the contesting parties. 12. Certain submissions also were made relating to the impracticability of sending the document in question to the self-same expert who had already expressed some opinion. It is needless to say that these aspects also may have to be appreciated while considering the submissions which may be made by the contesting parties. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.