ORAL ORDER 1. The instant appeal filed by defendant No.1 is directed against the order dated 11.07.2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in M.J.C. No. 17/2007. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under : i. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant and respondents No. 2 & 3 for specific performance of contract. ii. The trial Court, vide order dated 3.1.2006, proceeded ex parte against the appellant. However, as the plaintiff proposed to amend the plaint, therefore, again notice was sent by registered post to the appellant vide order dated 21.3.2006 and again the appellant was proceeded ex parte on 27.4.2006. iii The trial Court ultimately passed the ex parte decree on 7.4.2007. iv. The appellant preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree on 3.8.2007, inter alia on the ground that he did not receive any summons sent by registered post. v. The appellant examined himself. The respondent did not enter into witness box. vi. Vide impugned order, the trial Court rejected the appellant's prayer for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Court below. 4. Earlier, the trial Court issued summons against the appellant for his appearance in the case on 7.12.2005. On that day, Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was posted on 3.1.2006 for proper orders, that is to say, 3.1.2006 is not the date of hearing. On that date, the appellant was proceeded ex parte. Again on the basis of service of summons upon the appellant by registered post, the appellant was proceeded ex parte and ultimately ex parte decree was passed. 5. A bare perusal of the record would reveal, it was the appellant's case before the Court below that summons was never served upon him by registered post and the signatures appeared on postal acknowledgments (Ex.D.1 & D.2) are not his signatures and also applied for examination of hand-writing expert. 6. In the light of above facts, in order to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the Court below should have allowed the appellant to examine hand-writing expert to prove that the signatures on Ex.D.1 & D.2 are not his signatures and are forged. 7. 6. In the light of above facts, in order to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the Court below should have allowed the appellant to examine hand-writing expert to prove that the signatures on Ex.D.1 & D.2 are not his signatures and are forged. 7. In view of above, in my opinion, the Court below has committed an error in not permitting the appellant to examine the hand-writing expert and the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 8. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to decide the appellant's application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. afresh after affording due opportunity to the appellant to examine hand-writing expert. 9. Needless to mention that the Court below shall provide proper and sufficient opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and to file additional documents, if any. 10. Records of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court below on 29th October, 2012. Appeal Allowed.