Judgment : 1. The plaintiff filed a suit to declare that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 dated 17.08.1995 as null and void. 2. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XXVI, Rule 10 (A) read with section 151 of the CPC was filed by the defendant No.2 to send the disputed signatures in the General Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1990, Exhibit D3, to be compared with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff in General Power of Attorney dated 26.03.1995 and in the sale deed dated 18.04.1987 and to furnish a report. The Trial Court by the impugned order allowed the same. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on examining the impugned order, I do not find any error in the impugned order that calls for interference. 5. The trial Court while allowing the application was of the view that admittedly as recited in Exhibit – P21, the signatures of the plaintiff found in Exhibit – D3, was compared with the specimen signatures, which were taken by the police during the investigation and not with the signatures found on Exhibit D1 and Exhibit – D38 as admitted by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff regarding comparison of the signatures of the plaintiff is unsustainable. Consequently, the application was allowed. 6. I do not find any error committed by the trial court that calls for interference. The order passed by the Trial Court is just and necessary for the final adjudication of the suit. The application was required to be allowed to order to test the disputed signatures of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the report, of a Forensic Expert is extremely essential for disposal of the suit. 7. The petition being devoid of merits is rejected. Petition dismissed.