ORDER A. K. Shrivastava, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by learned 9th Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 4-B/10, whereby application of defendants/petitioners to get the disputed signature on the document examined by the handwriting expert has been rejected this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this petition, suffice it to say that a suit for recovery of certain amount, the details of which are mentioned in the plaint, has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the petitioners/defendants. The petitioners by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and specifically denied the execution of the document as well as the signature on the disputed document of promissory note. The learned trial Court thereafter framed necessary issue and parties led their evidence. The learned trial Court thereafter fixed the case for final arguments. At that juncture, an application (Annexure P/7) dated 26.4.2010 was filed under section 45 of the Evidence Act praying therein that defendants want to get the disputed signature examined by examining the handwriting expert. The learned trial judge by impugned order has rejected the said application. 3. In this manner, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants. We have gone through the impugned order as well as the application filed by petitioners/defendants under section 45 of the Evidence Act. We have also heard Shri Mohan Mangal, Advocate for respondent/plaintiff and we are of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On going through plaint averments, it is gathered that a promissory note has been executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff/respondent. However, in the written statement there is total denial of the defendants not only in respect to the execution of the promissory note but also with respect to the signature of the defendant Laxman Agrawal on the said document. The learned trial Court also framed necessary issue in that regard and the parties led their evidence. True, the defendants/petitioners voluntarily closed their evidence and at the stage of final arguments an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed to get the disputed signature examined by the handwriting expert. The learned trial Court also framed necessary issue in that regard and the parties led their evidence. True, the defendants/petitioners voluntarily closed their evidence and at the stage of final arguments an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed to get the disputed signature examined by the handwriting expert. The learned trial Judge has simply dismissed the application on the ground that it is filed at the fag end of the trial. Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out an specific bar in filing such type of application at the time of final arguments. In order to take out the grain from the chaff and to arrive at a proper conclusion as to whether the document was executed by the defendants and further that on the disputed document of promissory note the signature was put by defendant Laxman Agrawal or not, it was necessary to examine the handwriting expert and, therefore, according to us, the doors of justice cannot be shut merely on the ground that the application was moved by defendants at the fag end of the trial. 5. There are several modes to get a document proved. While examining the scope of section 67 of the Evidence Act we find that there cannot be any straight jacket formula or any particular mode of proving a particular document or handwriting or signature. Section 67 of the Evidence Act is the relevant provision in respect to the proof of signature and handwriting of a person. While examining the scope of section 67 of the Evidence Act we find that there cannot be any straight jacket formula or any particular mode of proving a particular document or handwriting or signature. Section 67 of the Evidence Act is the relevant provision in respect to the proof of signature and handwriting of a person. According to us, following are the modes for proving a document : "(i) By calling a person who signed or wrote a document; (ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written; (iii) By calling handwriting expert; (iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written; (v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signatures of handwriting with some admitted signatures or writing; (vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed 'or wrote it; (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person; A signature is also proved to have been made, if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some other person, e.g. by the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant; (viii) By other circumstantial evidence." In this context we may profitably place reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Kishan Prasad v. M.P. Government through Collector, Vidisha, 1983 JLJ 474 in which the another Single Bench decision of Court Ramibai v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1981 JLJ 388 has been placed reliance. Indeed, this exercise ought to have been done by the plaintiff, but if the defendants have moved an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act to get the handwriting examined, in absence of any specific bar in CPC, according to us, learned trial Court has arbitrarily dismissed the application without applying its proper mind on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For the reason stated hereinabove we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby set aside and the application (Annexure P/7) dated 26.4.2010 filed by defendant/petitioners stands allowed. 6. For the reason stated hereinabove we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby set aside and the application (Annexure P/7) dated 26.4.2010 filed by defendant/petitioners stands allowed. The learned trial Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioners to get the impugned document of promissory note examined by the handwriting expert and will also permit the defendants to get the handwriting examined in the Court. 7. This Court hopes and expect that the entire exercise shall be exercised by the trial Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and thereafter the suit be decided. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.