JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J.- Heard Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri P.S. Lotlikar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Shri R. Noronha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. Rule, Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. The above petition challenges two orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Mapusa, whereby the application under Order 26 Rule 10(A) and 10(B) of the Civil Procedure Code and the application under Order 16 Rule 6 read with Order 26 Rule 10(A) and 10(B) of the Civil Procedure Code came to be rejected. The first application filed by the petitioner was to direct the investigation of the document which according to the petitioners is the thumb impression of the petitioner No.1. The second application was filed to direct the scientific examination of the document of the power of attorney dated 30.05.1992 which was executed before the Sub-Registrar of Mapusa. The learned Judge by the impugned orders rejected both the applications essentially on the ground that the petitioners have filed the suit on the cause of action claimed to have been arisen when the finger print expert confirmed that the thumb impression was not that of the petitioner No.1. 5. The parameters appointing the scientific expert for deciding the disputed signature and/or thumb impression within the provisions of the Evidence Act have been considered by this Court in the judgment dated 13.12.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 645 of 2012. This Court has observed at para 7 thus : "7. Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act when the Court has to form an opinion with regard to the signature and/or handwriting which is sought to be disputed, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art are relevant facts. The Courts normally look at expert evidence with greater sense of acceptability, but it is equally true that the Courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the expert specially when such reports are unsustainable. The essential principle governing expert evidence is that the expert is not only to provide reasons to support his opinions but the result should be directly demonstrated. The essential principle governing expert evidence is that the expert is not only to provide reasons to support his opinions but the result should be directly demonstrated. When, any matter to assist the Court on any specialized aspect to decide a dispute is necessary it is always open to the Court to seek assistance of such expert. In the present case, considering the nature of the dispute, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order and refuse the scientific examination of the disputed documents. In any event, the matter as to whether such opinion is right or not should be considered by the learned Judge on its own merits after such report is examined." 6. Considering that the thumb impression is being disputed, the Court can always take the assistance of such scientific expert for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy. No doubt, such report is not binding on the Court, the same would have to be considered on its own merits after the parties are given liberty to challenge such report. 7. Be that as it may, taking note of the fact that the applications have been filed by the petitioners at the initial stage of the suit. I find that such applications can be filed by the petitioners only after the issues are framed. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the issues have not yet been framed and at this stage the learned Judge would apply its mind to the pleadings of the parties and frame adequate issues. Hence, in the interest of justice, I find it appropriate that the impugned orders passed by the learned Judge be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner dated 24.02.2012 be decided afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law after a the issues are framed. 8. Shri Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners upon instructions seeks leave to withdraw the application dated 17.10.2011 which stands accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned orders dated 20.12.2011 and 03.05.2012 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The learned Judge is directed to decide the said application dated 24.02.2012 afresh in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned orders dated 20.12.2011 and 03.05.2012 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The learned Judge is directed to decide the said application dated 24.02.2012 afresh in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv) All contentions of parties on merits are left open. (v) The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.