JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner has assailed to the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in the present writ petition. 2. The facts in nutshell are that in a suit for cancellation of will dated 24.02.2011, plaintiff moved an application dated 27.03.2017 with a prayer that the signature on the earlier will dated 20.03.2002 be verified/examined by one Handwriting Expert Mr. Vinod Choudhary. 3. The said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff came to be rejected by the learned Court below vide its order dated 29.08.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.08.2017 submitted that the learned Court below has seriously erred in rejecting petitioner''s application for getting the opinion of the Handwriting Expert with regard to the signatures on the will dated 20.03.2002. 5. He contended that the learned Trial Court has expressed its opinion that it would prefer the opinion given by the Government Forensic Laboratory and in this view of the matter, if the opinion of the Handwriting Expert as prayed by the petitioner is not summoned/solicited, the petitioner''s right would be prejudicially effected. 6. Mr. Kharlia further contended that the Trial Court has already proceeded with preoccupied notion and has already expressed its view that Government FSL is correct, for which it has rejected subject application. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the material available on record. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in rejecting petitioner''s application. The purpose of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is to collect prima facie opinion of the Expert. On the basis of the evidence available on record, including report of Expert, the Court is required to give its finding. The petitioner has and shall always have liberty to produce or adduce his own evidence, which includes production of Handwriting Expert in the witness box in support of his plaint and/or to cross examine the author of the Expert opinion. Observation in this regard has already been made by the learned Court below. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the order impugned dated 29.08.2017 does not call for any interference; for which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is rejected.