JUDGMENT :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.97 dated January 31, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.75 of 1993 thereby rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being a Title Suit No.75 of 1993 for eviction against the defendant before the learned Munsif, Second Court, Hooghly in 1993. The defendant entered appearance and he filed a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint. Thereafter, the said suit was at the stage of recording evidence. The plaintiff was examined-in-chief and at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiff a hand note dated March 17, 1987 purported to have been written and signed by the plaintiff was shown to him and the plaintiff denied his handwriting and signature thereon. For that reason, that document was marked “X” for identification. But the rent receipts issued by him has been marked as exhibit no. A to A-13 on admission. Then the defendant filed an application on May 19, 1995 for examination of the document marked “X” for identification for verification whether the said document was signed by the plaintiff or not. That document along with other admitted signatures were sent to the handwriting expert by original post. But, it had not reached to its destination. For that reason, the petitioner filed an application for reconstruction and that application for reconstruction was rejected. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. The learned Trial Judge has observed that the said writing marked “X” for identification is disputed and when it was tendered to the plaintiff during his cross-examination he denied to have written and signed thereon. It was a just writing on a paper and so if the writing may be done from other source of knowledge but how the signature appearing thereon is to be constructed. The plaintiff has denied that he signed on the paper. It was a just writing on a paper and so if the writing may be done from other source of knowledge but how the signature appearing thereon is to be constructed. The plaintiff has denied that he signed on the paper. This being the position, the learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified to hold that reconstruction of the said hand note is practically impossible. The learned Trial Judge has, therefore, adopted a correct procedure. The petitioner could have taken necessary steps for sending the same by registered post but it was sent by ordinary post certainly at the instance of the defendant. He could have filed the requisites for sending the same to the concerned handwriting expert by registered post even after taking the order and obtaining the concerned papers, the petitioner himself could have sent the same to the handwriting expert by registered post at his own initiative upon taking permission from the Court. So, the petitioner had also latches in not taking the appropriate steps in regard to the sending the said hand note to the handwriting expert. This being the position, this Bench holds that the learned Trial Judge has adopted correct steps with regard to the application filed by the petitioner. So, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.