JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral). :- Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 12.08.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad thereby dismissing the plaintiff’s application for permission to examine handwriting expert as witness. 2. Petitioner has filed suit against Bhanu Films through its proprietors S.P. Chaudhary and also against S.P. Chaudhary. Plaintiff’s case is that the plaintiff supplied material to the defendants. Defendant No.2 vide letter dated 26.11.1998 admitted to have placed supply order with the plaintiff and it was also admitted that defendant No.2 is proprietor of defendant No.1. Plaintiff moved application (Annexure PCR No.4966 of 2009 2 3) in the trial Court for permission to examine handwriting expert to compare signature of defendant No.2 on photocopy of the aforesaid letter dated 26.11.1998 alleging that the original letter was given to the previous counsel at the time of ex parte evidence and has not been returned by the previous counsel and permission for secondary evidence of the letter has already been granted. 3. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner-plaintiff has already been granted permission to lead secondary evidence of the letter, the petitioner wants to examine handwriting expert to prove signatures of defendant No.2 on the aforesaid letter. On the other hand learned counsel for defendant No.2 contended that signatures cannot be compared on photostats copy and therefore, plaintiff’s application has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Rai Versus Prem Kumar Khera and others 1995-2 PLR 144. 5. I have carefully considered the contentions of the counsel for the parties. In the judgment of Surjit Rai (Supra), it was observed that in view of advance technology, signatures of a person can be lifted from one document and put on another document by super imposition. However, it would be for the trial Court to assess the evidentiary value of the evidence to be led by the petitioner-plaintiff. The defendants would be at liberty to lead their own evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence. However, it would be for the trial Court to assess the evidentiary value of the evidence to be led by the petitioner-plaintiff. The defendants would be at liberty to lead their own evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence. If plaintiff had straight away put some handwriting expert as witness in the witness-box, the defendants would not have been able to raise any objection to his examination except by way of cross-examination of the witness. It appears that application (Annexure P-3) moved by plaintiff-petitioner is a futile exercise. Plaintiff has a right to lead his relevant evidence. It is different matter as to what probative value is to be attached to such evidence. 6. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order of the trial Court rejecting prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to examine handwriting expert cannot be sustained. The impugned order is illegal and erroneous. Accordingly, Revision Petition is allowed and impugned order dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial Court is set aside and application (Annexure P-3) moved by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to examine handwriting expert as witness. However, it is made clear that it would be for the trial Court to evaluate the probative value of the evidence that may be led by the parties. I have not expressed any opinion as to whether it is possible to compare signatures on photocopy by handwriting expert or not. ----------------------