ORDER 1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the orders, Annexure P/1 and P/2. The petitioner earlier filed an application Order 26 Rule 10 CPC and section 45 of the Evidence Act with a request to appoint an hand writing expert to inquire about the singnature of defendant Shabbir Khan. The said application of the petitioners was rejected by the Court below on 18.10.2012 merely on the ground that the said application was not supported by an affidavit. It was further opined that such application can be entertained at a later stage. Then petitioner filed another application on the same subject which was duly supported by an affidavit. This application is also rejected by order dated 6.11.12 (Annexure P/1). The Court below opined that earlier application was not rejected only because it was not supported by the affidavit, it was also rejected for the reason that this prayer can be entertained at a later stage i.e. after recording the evidence of the plaintiff. 2. It is interesting to note that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent Shri Mangal submits that he has no objection if handwriting expert’s opinion is obtained after recording the evidence of the plaintiff, but he has a serious objection of same this stage. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In view of the aforesaid stand of the parties, principally there is no dispute about the requirement of the appointment of an handwriting expert. The only question is whether the Court below has rightly rejected the said prayer at this stage when plaintiffs statement is to be recorded. 5. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order which reads as under:- flfoy ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 26 fu- 10 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 45 & gLrys[k fo’ks”kK dh fu;qfä dh vko’;drk ds ckjs esa dksbZ fookn ugha & fu;qfä iwoZrj ÁØe ij dh tk ldrh gS rkfd leLr i{kdkj Qk;nk mBk ldsaA ¼2010½ 9 ,l-lh-lh 496 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½ ORDER 1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the orders, Annexure P/1 and P/2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the orders, Annexure P/1 and P/2. The petitioner earlier filed an application Order 26 Rule 10 CPC and section 45 of the Evidence Act with a request to appoint an hand writing expert to inquire about the singnature of defendant Shabbir Khan. The said application of the petitioners wSA rejected by the Court below on 18.10.2012 merely on the ground that the said application wSA not supported by an affidavit. It wSA further opined that such application can be entertained at a later stage. Then petitioner filed another application on the same subject which wSA duly supported by an affidavit. This application is also rejected by order dated 6.11.12 (Annexure P/1). The Court below opined that earlier application wSA not rejected only because it wSA not supported by the affidavit, it wSA also rejected for the reSAon that this prayer can be entertained at a later stage i.e. after recording the evidence of the plaintiff. 2. It is interesting to note that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent Shri Mangal submits that he hSA no objection if handwriting expert’s opinion is obtained after recording the evidence of the plaintiff, but he hSA a serious objection of same this stage. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In view of the aforesaid stand of the parties, principally there is no dispute about the requirement of the appointment of an handwriting expert. The only question is whether the Court below hSA rightly rejected the said prayer at this stage when plaintiffs statement is to be recorded. 5. 4. In view of the aforesaid stand of the parties, principally there is no dispute about the requirement of the appointment of an handwriting expert. The only question is whether the Court below hSA rightly rejected the said prayer at this stage when plaintiffs statement is to be recorded. 5. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order which reads SA under:- ^^izdj.k ds voyksdu ls nf’kZr gS fd fnukad 18-10-12 dks izfroknh dh vksj ls mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds varxZr vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk tks dsoy ‘kCchj [kkW ds ‘kiFk i= u gksus ds dkj.k gh fujLr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk vfirq bl vk/kkj ij Hkh fujLr fd;k Fkk fd oknh lk{kh blls iwoZ mijksDr nLrkost ds laca/k esa fdlh gLrfyfi fo’ks”kK ls tkap fd;k tkuk vko’;d izrhr ugha gksrk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd izdj.k esa oknh lk{; laiw.kZ ugha gq;h gS rFkk U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr vkns’k esa ;g Hkh ik;k x;k Fkk fd ;fn U;k;ky; oknh lk{; ds mijkar nLrkost ds laca/k esa fdlh fo’ks”kK ls tkap djk;k tkuk mfpr ik;k tkrk gS rks og bl laca/k esa vkns’k ikfjr dj ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksDr vkosnu blh Lrj ij iks”k.kh; u gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 6. A careful reading of this order shows that the Court below has rejected the prayer on three reasons, vis (i) the enquiry by handwrithing expert before recording evidence of plaintiff is not necessary, (ii) the prayer for appointment of said expert can be entertained at a later stage and (iii) at this stage the application is not maintainable. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the aforesaid stand of the parties, the requirement of opinion of an handwriting expert is no more in dispute. I find force in the argument of Shri A.V. Bhardwaj that when requirement of opinion of handwriting expert is not disputed, why he should not be appointment at this stage. The parties will be benefited by his expert opinion and Court will also get assistance to arrive at a right conclusion. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has recorded its conclusion that at this stage such application is not maintainable, however, in support of the said conclusion, no reasons are mentioned. Reasons are heartbeat of conclusions. For the purpose of maintaining transparency, reasons are required to be given. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has recorded its conclusion that at this stage such application is not maintainable, however, in support of the said conclusion, no reasons are mentioned. Reasons are heartbeat of conclusions. For the purpose of maintaining transparency, reasons are required to be given. Importance of assigning reason is emphasized by the Suprema Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 in the following words:- “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisons, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quas-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous consideration. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial quasi-justicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisons serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is fathful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and suceinet. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is fathful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and suceinet. A pretence of reasons of “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a vaid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubled that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broaders scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Stasbourg Jurisprudence. (0) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. (8) In view of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, it is clear that in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial proceeding, the reasons should be given to maintain transparency and to ensure proper application of mind. The Court below has not given any reasons in support of its conclusion that the application at this stage is not maintainable. If appointment of handwriting expert can be made at a later stage, why this should not be done at an earlier stage so that all the parties can take advantage or make their stand clear on that opinion. This will not cause any prejudice to the other side. In this view of the matter, I deem it proper to set aside the order dated 6.11.12 and 18.10.12 and allow the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC and section 45 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the Court below is directed to pass appropriate orders for getting the document dated 2.1.1989 examined by handwriting expert in accordance with law. The Court below shall pass appropriate orders to ensure the same. In order words, the relief prayed in the application of the petitioner dated 6.11.12 is granted and the Court below is directed to pass appropriate orders for ensuring compliance. Petition is allowed. No costs.