JUDGMENT AND ORDER Das, J. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. Kailashahar, North Tripura (now Unakoti) in Money Suit No. 01/2011. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S Deb assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P Roy Barman for the appellant and learned senior counsel, Mr. SM Chakrborty assisted by learned counsel, Ms P Sen, for the respondent. 3. The respondent, as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as 'plaintiff') instituted Money Suit No.1/2011 against the appellant, as defendant (hereinafter mentioned as 'defendant') seeking a decree for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest thereon. 4. The case of the plaintiff in short was that he was a businessman by profession and the defendant was a contractor and they were known to each other. On 09.01.2008 the defendant approached the plaintiff to advance a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- to facilitate him in executing a contract work with an assurance to pay back the amount within six months. The plaintiff agreed and on 10.01.2008 paid the defendant an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- in presence of Haranath Bhattacharee. In the first week of February, 2008 the defendant again approached the plaintiff to advance another amount of Rs.7,25,000/- for completion of his entire contract work and that amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 28.02.2008 in presence of witnesses. 5. On 26.08.2008 the defendant executed a money receipt on a non-judicial stamp in presence of witnesses namely, Chitta Ranjan Paul and Govinda Debnath undertaking to pay back the amount within six months from the date of payment of last amount, i.e. 28.02.2008. As per agreement, the defendant did not make repayment of the amount and hence on 27.03.2009 the plaintiff along with Haranath Bhattachrjee went to the house of the defendant and requested him to pay back the amount immediately. On that date, the plaintiff handed over a cheque bearing No. 0833874 drawn on Tripura Gramin Bank, Ambassa Branch and the cheque was scribed by Haranath Bhattacharjee and was signed by the defendant in presence of the plaintiff and Haranath Bhattacharjee. Plaintiff deposited the cheque for encashment in his account but the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of "drawer's signature differs" and "balance not covers". Bank of the plaintiff informed him the position by memo dated 21.05.2009. 6. Plaintiff deposited the cheque for encashment in his account but the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of "drawer's signature differs" and "balance not covers". Bank of the plaintiff informed him the position by memo dated 21.05.2009. 6. The plaintiff immediately brought the fact of dishonour of cheque to the notice of the defendant but he made no response. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued demand notice dated 09.06.2009 but still the defendant did not make payment of the amount. The plaintiff thereafter filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Kamalpur and in that criminal case the defendant was acquitted on benefit of doubt. The plaintiff preferred an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff instituted the suit for realization of the amount. 7. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant with a view to deprive the plaintiff issued a cheque intentionally putting his signature in a different manner than that of his signature given in the Bank and deceitfully issued the cheque. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant issued money receipt in presence of the witnesses and the defendant was bound to repay the amount. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 10% p.a. and cost of the suit. 8. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It was contended by the defendant that he did not approach the plaintiff on 09.01.2008 for a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- and did not receive any such amount on 10.01.2008 with the assurance of paying the amount back within six months and again he did not approach the plaintiff in the first week of February, 2008 for another amount of Rs.7,25,000/- and did not receive any such amount on 28.02.2008 and that he did not execute any Money receipt on 26.08.2008 in presence of witnesses. The defendant also contended that he did not issue any cheque on 27.03.2009 for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- and plaintiff has failed to prove the allegation in the criminal court. The criminal court adjudicating upon the complaint filed by the plaintiff on the allegation of issuance of cheque acquitted the defendant from the charge of criminal case which was affirmed by the appellate court. The criminal court adjudicating upon the complaint filed by the plaintiff on the allegation of issuance of cheque acquitted the defendant from the charge of criminal case which was affirmed by the appellate court. Since the criminal court already acquitted the defendant from the charge of the criminal case the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit on the same cause of action and the suit of the plaintiff was barred by res judicata. He did not receive any amount from the plaintiff by way of loan and did not execute any money receipt dated 26.08.2008 and cheque dated 27.03.2009 and that the allegation was false. The defendant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 9. The trial court considering the pleadings of the parties by order dated 13.01.2011 framed the following issues:- "i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable or not? ii. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? iii. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? iv. Whether the descendant took a loan of Rs.13,50,000/- in two instalments by executing a money receipt with a condition that the loan money would be refunded to the plaintiff within 6 months from 26.08.2008? v. Whether the defendant did not pay the above loan money to the plaintiff as per condition of the money receipt? vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for? vii. Any other relief/reliefs." 10. In course of trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined three more witnesses namely,- 1. PW2, Haranath Bhattacharjee, 2. PW3, Chitta Ranjan Paul, 3. PW4, Govinda Debnath. The plaintiff also proved the following documents in support of his case: Ext.1/1 Cheque no.0833874, dated 27/3/09 (S/O by deft.), Ext. 2 Cheque deposit slips dated 19/5/09 (S/O by deft.), Ext.3 Cheque return memo dated 21/5/09 (S/O by deft.), Ext.4 Series Copy of Advocate notice dated 9/6/09 (S/O by deft.), Ext. 5 series Postal Regd. Slip and A/D (S/O by defendant.), Ext.6 series Certified copy of Judgment dated 6/10/10 passed in CR-1903 of 2009 Ext. 7 series Certified copy of Judgment dated 21/5/11 passed in Criminal Appeal case No. 7 of 2010, Ext.8/1 - Money receipt (S/O by deft.) 11. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and proved the following document in support of his case: "Ext. A series - Certified copy of judgment passed in Criminal Appeal case No. 7/2010". 12. 7 series Certified copy of Judgment dated 21/5/11 passed in Criminal Appeal case No. 7 of 2010, Ext.8/1 - Money receipt (S/O by deft.) 11. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and proved the following document in support of his case: "Ext. A series - Certified copy of judgment passed in Criminal Appeal case No. 7/2010". 12. The trial court considering the pleadings and evidence on record decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit. 13. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred the present appeal. 14. On 08.12.2015 while this appeal was taken up for hearing, the following order was passed by this Court:- "08.12.2015. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2012 whereby, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-appellant along with interest and costs. In view of the order which we proposed to pass, it is not necessary to give the detailed facts. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant approached him for advancing a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- on 09.01.2008 through his friend Haranath Bhattacharjee. The case of the plaintiff is that this amount was advanced with the condition that it would be repaid within 6 months. Thereafter, in the last week of February, 2008, the defendant again approached the plaintiff for further advance of Rs.7,25,000/-. This amount was to be paid by 6 months i.e. by 28.08.2008. On 26.08.2008, a written document has been drawn up whereby, the defendant is alleged to have admitted that he owed a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- to the plaintiff and he also to repay the same within 6 months. One of the main arguments raised is that this receipt did not find mention in the proceedings filed by the plaintiff under Section 138A of the N.I. Act and according to the appellant-defendant, this receipt was never executed by him. We are clearly of the view that this receipt goes to the root of the case. In case, the signatures on the receipt of the defendant then in his evidence he should have explained how his signatures appeared on this document. Order 41, Rule 27 provides that the appellate Court can suo moto require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Order 41, Rule 27 provides that the appellate Court can suo moto require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. As held by us above, the receipt is a very important document and it is necessary to ascertain whether this document is signed by the defendant or not. There are admitted signatures of the defendant on his written statement as well as on the grounds of appeal filed before this Court as well as on the Vokalat Nama and the evidence filed by him before the trial Court. Therefore, there is sufficient material to compare his admitted signatures with the signatures on the document Exbt.8. We, therefore, direct that the document Exbt.8 shall be sent to the Handwriting Expert, Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory and in this document Exbt.8 at the High Court, the alleged signatures of Sri Manindra Kishore Paul have been encircled in Circle 'A' and the Handwriting Expert, Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory shall compare these signatures with the admitted signatures with the defendant on the written statement at page-26 of the lower Court file. His signatures appear at 11 pages and have been encircled as 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K' & 'L'. The admitted signatures of the appellant-defendant also appear on his affidavit filed in evidence at 6 pages encircled as 'M', 'N', 'O', 'P', 'Q' & 'R'. The admitted signatures are also find place in the Vokalat Nama encircled as 'S'. The Registrar Judicial is directed to photocopy all these documents certify them and place them in the original record and send the original documents along with the original Exbt.8 to Handwriting Expert, Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory, who shall opine whether the signature encircled 'A' on document Exbt.8 before the trial Court is signed by the same person, who has signed the signatures 'B' to 'S' in the pleadings, affidavits and Vokalat Nama. The needful be done within 15(fifteen) days. Report be submitted by the Handwriting Expert, Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory latest by 15th February, 2016 and the matter be listed before the Court on 1st March, 2016. We are making it clear that we shall not entertain any objection against the report because the Handwriting Expert, Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory is examining the documents at the behest of the Court. We are making it clear that we shall not entertain any objection against the report because the Handwriting Expert, Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory is examining the documents at the behest of the Court. We will not entertain any objection against it. The Examiner may also send his bill of the fees to be paid to him and the order with regard to the payment shall be made at the time of final disposal of the appeal." 15. Pursuant to the above order passed by this Court, the handwriting expert of the State Forensic Science Laboratory submitted a report and after receipt of that report this Court on 01.03.2016 passed the following order: "01.03.2016. Report of the Handwriting Expert has been received. The Handwriting Expert has opined that the signature marked 'A' tallies with the other admitted signatures of the appellant, Manindra Kishore Paul. According to him, in the document 'Exbt.8' the signature marked 'A' of Manindra Kishore Paul was already existing before the main portion of the receipt was entered. We would like to have some clarifications from the Handwriting Expert in this matter. List on 06.04.2016. Registrar General shall send a communication to the Handwriting Expert to appear in Court on the said date at 10.30 AM. The matter shall be listed at the top of the cause list since we have called the Handwriting Expert and we would not like to detain him for long time." 16. Pursuant to the above order, on 06.04.2016 the handwriting expert namely, VGS Bhatnagar appeared before this Court and he was examined in chief and cross-examined. The report submitted by the handwriting expert was marked as Exhibit-C1 and the opinion as Exhibit- C2 and all the annexures as Exhibit-C3 collectively. 17. The report of the hand writing expert marked Exhibit-C1 reads thus: "STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA NARSINGARH : AGARTALA OPINION No. DOC/54/15 Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Tripura, Agt. RFA No. 17 of 2012 The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined by me with the help of scientific instruments available in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Agartala. 2. Interse comparison of the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked Ext. nos. B to S reveals similarities in handwriting characteristics indicating that they were also written by one and the Same person. 3. The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked Ext. nos. 2. Interse comparison of the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked Ext. nos. B to S reveals similarities in handwriting characteristics indicating that they were also written by one and the Same person. 3. The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked Ext. nos. B to S purporting to be of Manaindra Kishore Paul also wrote the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Ext.no.A. 4. Examination of the signature marked Ext.no. 'A' vis-a-vis the body writing marked 'A/1' in the Receipt (Ext.no.8) reveals anchoronistic features indicating that the Receipt (Ext. no. 8) is not a genuine document but a built-up document. SPECIMEN SEAL Date: 21st January, 2016 7th Nagha, 1422 Sd/- Illegible (VGS Bhatnagar) M.Sc. Consultant cum Document Examiner SFSL, Narsingarh, Agartala. Counter signature Sd/- Illegible (Dr. HK Pratihari) Director SFSL, Narsinghar, Agartala" 18. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb has submitted that the report submitted by the handwriting expert has been accepted and as per that report Exhibit-8 was not a genuine document. The handwriting expert clearly opined that it was a built up document. At the time of his examination in chief before this Court he has assigned reasons as to why he opined that it was a built up document and that opinion has not been shaken in any manner and therefore, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the document (Exhibit-8) to prove his case. It was also argued by learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that the plaintiff instituted criminal prosecution against the defendant under Section 138 of NI Act in respect of the cheque which was marked as Exhibit-1 and the plaintiff has failed to prove before the criminal court that the cheque was issued by the defendant and so on the basis of that cheque the present suit of the plaintiff cannot stand. According to Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel, the entire case of the plaintiff was based on Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-8. While both the documents were doubtful, the trial court would disbelieve those documents and would dismiss the suit. It was further argued by learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that according to the plaintiff the amount of Rs.6,25,000/- was advanced on 10.01.2008 and another amount of Rs.7,25,000/- was advanced on 28.02.2008 but no document was executed on the date of making payment of those alleged amounts. It was further argued by learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that according to the plaintiff the amount of Rs.6,25,000/- was advanced on 10.01.2008 and another amount of Rs.7,25,000/- was advanced on 28.02.2008 but no document was executed on the date of making payment of those alleged amounts. Exhibit-8 was bound to be termed as a doubtful document since it was executed on 26.08.2008 with a promise that the amount should be paid within six months from 28.02.2008. The contents of the documents itself was doubtful and it might be a built up document as observed by the hand writing expert. Mr. Deb further submitted that according to the plaintiff, money receipt was issued by the defendant on 26.08.2008 and the cheque was issued on 27.03.2009. So the money receipt was superseded by the subsequent cheque and while the plaintiff already failed to prove his case before the criminal court about the cheque, he cannot now raise the claim based on Exhibit-8, i.e. money receipt dated 26.08.2008. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the finding of the trial court was self-contradictory and was not tenable in law. This Court rightly obtained expert opinion on the document and in view of the expert opinion the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and hence the appeal may be allowed and judgment and decree be set aside. 19. On the other hand, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, learned senior counsel Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that handwriting expert was specifically asked by this Court only to give opinion as to whether the alleged signature of the defendant in Exhibit-8 tallies with his other admitted signatures on record. No other question was referred to the handwriting expert. So the opinion of the handwriting expert in respect of the contents of the documents was uncalled for opinion and cannot be acted upon. He has also argued that the handwriting expert opined that the signature in Exhibit-8 was the signature of the defendant which corroborates the pleadings and evidence adduced by the plaintiff. 20. PWs 2,3&4 proved Exhibit-8 that it was executed in their presence and PW2 scribed that document. So the contents of the documents were proved by the witnesses examined by the plaintiff as well as the signature also proved by those witnesses which was affirmed by the handwriting expert. 20. PWs 2,3&4 proved Exhibit-8 that it was executed in their presence and PW2 scribed that document. So the contents of the documents were proved by the witnesses examined by the plaintiff as well as the signature also proved by those witnesses which was affirmed by the handwriting expert. The rest of the opinion of the handwriting expert was uncalled for and without any requisition from the Court. The handwriting expert was not supposed to give such opinion without being requisitioned by the court. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the defendant neither in his pleadings nor in his evidence stated that he signed any white paper or that any unwritten signed stamp paper was obtained or stolen by the plaintiff and thereby the document was created. In absence of such pleading or evidence, in all preponderance of probabilities, the plaintiff's evidence is to be accepted and the part of opinion of the handwriting expert in respect of the unrequisitioned opinion is to be discarded. He referred to the observation of the Apex Court in para 40 of the judgment in Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178 . 21. It was also submitted by Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel that the defendant in his cross-examination admitted that he was holding account No. 6800 in Tripura Gramin Bank, Ambassa Branch and a cheque book was issued by the Bank containing cheque No. 0833874 in connection with his account. Neither in his pleadings nor in his evidence the defendant stated anything that Exhibit-1, the cheque, was stolen from his possession or that in any other manner that has reached the hand of the plaintiff and thereby the plaintiff created it to unscrupulously claim the amount. In all preponderance of probabilities it was to be presumed that the cheque was issued by the plaintiff in due course intentionally differentiating his signature so that it was not honoured by the Bank. 22. According to Mr. Charkaborty, the acquittal of the accused from the case under Section 138 of NI Act cannot have any bearing on the fate of the civil suit which shall be decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the civil suit alone without looking into the fact of the criminal case. 22. According to Mr. Charkaborty, the acquittal of the accused from the case under Section 138 of NI Act cannot have any bearing on the fate of the civil suit which shall be decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the civil suit alone without looking into the fact of the criminal case. If the pleadings and evidence on record is carefully taken into account and balanced, the plaintiff's case that he advanced the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- to the defendant and that the defendant issued a money receipt (Exhibit-8) and also cheque (Exhibit-1) has been proved with both oral and documentary evidence and so the trial court rightly construed the evidence on record and decree passed by the trial court should be maintained. 23. We have meticulously gone through the pleadings and evidence on record as well as the opinion of the handwriting expert. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that on the approach of the defendant on 10.01.2008 he advanced a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- and on 28.02.2008 he advanced another amount of Rs.7,25,000/- in total Rs.13,50,000/- and the payment was made by the plaintiff in presence of Haranath Bhattacharjee (PW2). It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant assured repayment of the amount within six months from the date of receipt of the amount. The plaintiff, further contended that on 26.08.2008 the defendant executed a money receipt (Exhibit-8) and it was written by PW2 and signed by the defendant in presence of PWs 3&4. 24. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant did not make payment in terms of the agreement and, therefore, on 27.03.2009 the plaintiff along with PW2 went to the house of the defendant and approached him to make payment and on that date the defendant issued a cheque (Exhibit-1) drawn on the Tripura Gramin Bank, Ambassa Branch for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-. The cheque was written by PW2 and was signed by the defendant which was proved by the evidence of plaintiff and PW2. The plaintiff has made a categorical statement in his examination in chief, which was not shaken in cross-examination or otherwise. The plaintiff admitted that he did not mention in his criminal complaint i.e. case No. CR 1903/2009 that the defendant executed a money receipt dated 26.08.2008. The plaintiff has made a categorical statement in his examination in chief, which was not shaken in cross-examination or otherwise. The plaintiff admitted that he did not mention in his criminal complaint i.e. case No. CR 1903/2009 that the defendant executed a money receipt dated 26.08.2008. Non-mentioning of the fact of money receipt in the criminal complaint instituted under Section 138 NI Act cannot be a ground to disbelieve the fact that no such money receipt was issued/executed by the defendant. Otherwise, the evidence of the plaintiff is consistent with his pleading and supported by the evidence of PWs 2,3&4 and both the documents, i.e. Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-8 were proved by the plaintiff and his witnesses according to law. 25. PW2, as it appears, is an independent witness. He categorically stated that the advancement of Rs.6,25,000/- on 10.01.2008 and Rs.7,25,000/- on 28.02.2008 were made by the plaintiff to the defendant in his presence. He also stated that Exhibit-8 was scribed by him and it was signed by the defendant. He has also stated that on 27.03.2009 he along with plaintiff visited the house of the defendant and the defendant issued a cheque to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- and he wrote the cheque which was signed by the defendant and that the said cheque was dishonoured. He proved the contents of Exhibit-8 and his signature on the documents and also the writings in the cheque. His evidence has not been shaken at all in cross examination. There is nothing to show that he was an interested witness and/or a pocket witness of the plaintiff. In the absence of any such evidence on record the trial court, in our considered opinion, rightly relied on the evidence on PW2. 26. PWs 3&4 are the witnesses to Exhibit-8. They made categorical statement that on 26.08.2008 Exhibit-8 was written in their presence by PW2 and the defendant put his signature in their presence. Their evidence also has not been shaken in the cross-examination in any manner. Except suggestions, there is nothing in the cross-examination to show that those witnesses were in any way interested to help the plaintiff or that the witnesses were inimical to the defendant. Their evidence also has not been shaken in the cross-examination in any manner. Except suggestions, there is nothing in the cross-examination to show that those witnesses were in any way interested to help the plaintiff or that the witnesses were inimical to the defendant. Neither in the pleadings nor in his evidence, the defendant raised any point that PWs 2, 3 & 4 were interested witnesses and were inimical to him and, therefore, they deposed in favour of the plaintiff and against him. Plaintiff and his witnesses proved Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-8 and the trial court relying on the said documents which was corroborated by the oral evidence of the PWs, decreed the suit. 27. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff instituted a criminal case, i.e. case No. CR 1903/2009 in the Court of the SDJM, Kamalpur under Section 138 NI Act and a copy of the judgment has been proved as Exhibit-6 wherein we find that the defendant has been acquitted from the criminal case on benefit of doubt since the plaintiff, according to learned SDJM could not prove the case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. It is also an admitted position that the plaintiff preferred Criminal Appeal No. 07/2010 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by judgment dated 21.05.2011 and thereby the order of acquittal passed by the trial court was maintained. The acquittal in the criminal case does not disentitle the plaintiff from instituting a civil suit for realization of the amount allegedly advanced by the plaintiff. The civil suit has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties in the civil suit, independent of the decision of the criminal case. 28. A charge of criminal offence, before a criminal court, according to the settled principle of law has to be proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the burden lies on the plaintiff/prosecution to prove the case. Whereas, a civil suit should be decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and there is no requirement of prove beyond reasonable doubt. Burden definitely lies on the plaintiff to prove his case. The question here is whether the plaintiff discharged his burden of proving the case. Whereas, a civil suit should be decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and there is no requirement of prove beyond reasonable doubt. Burden definitely lies on the plaintiff to prove his case. The question here is whether the plaintiff discharged his burden of proving the case. The trial court after a detailed discussion of the evidence on record arrived at a finding, assigning reasons that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case with preponderance of probabilities that he advanced the amount claimed and that Exhibit-1 was a cheque issued from the cheque book of the defendant and Exhibit-8 was a money receipt issued by the defendant admitting receipt of the amount and assuring repayment thereof. 29. The plaintiff asserted that Exhibit-8, the money receipt was executed by the defendant on 26.08.2008 and that it was written by PW2 in presence of PWs 3&4. That contention of the plaintiff has been proved by presenting Exhibit-8 in evidence and the evidence of PWs 2, 3 & 4 has not been shaken in any manner. The defendant took the plea that he neither received any such amount nor executed any such money receipt. In his pleadings or evidence, he did not even make a whisper that any unwritten signed white stamp paper was handed over by him to the plaintiff or that plaintiff fraudulently obtained his signature in blank stamp paper. Since, Exhibit-8 was the vital document on which the plaintiff relied and the defendant denied, this Court with the consent of both the parties asked for expert opinion in respect of the signature of the defendant appeared in Exhibit-8. 30. The handwriting expert clearly opined that the signature of the defendant appeared in Exhibit-8 was identical to other admitted signatures of the defendant in the referred papers. So, the pleaded case of the plaintiff that Exhibit-8 was executed by the defendant has been affirmed by the opinion of the handwriting expert. 31. The argument of learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that the handwriting expert's opinion in respect of contents of Exhibit-8 makes Exhibit-8 a doubtful document and not to be accepted for consideration. So, the pleaded case of the plaintiff that Exhibit-8 was executed by the defendant has been affirmed by the opinion of the handwriting expert. 31. The argument of learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that the handwriting expert's opinion in respect of contents of Exhibit-8 makes Exhibit-8 a doubtful document and not to be accepted for consideration. Whether that part of the opinion of the handwriting expert is to be accepted or not and whether for that observation of the handwriting expert, the entire case of the plaintiff should be rejected, is the cardinal point to the decided now. 32. It is an admitted position that the observation in paragraph 4 of Exhibit-C1 was made by the handwriting expert without any requisition from the court. The observation of the handwriting expert in respect of the signature of the defendant in Exhibit-8 has not been challenged by the defendant. So it has been affirmed that the signature of the defendant in Exhibit-8 was the genuine signature of the defendant. Now question is whether for the observation made in paragraph 4 of Exhibit-C1, the document should be rejected as a whole or not. 33. In Exhibit-C2 in respect of opinion made in para 4 the handwriting expert assigned the following reasons which he asserted in his evidence before this Court: "In my report, I have stated that the signatures on the document purporting to be of Manindra Kishore Paul are identical to the signatures on the admitted documents. Therefore, it is apparent that the signatures are of Manindra Kishore Paul. However, the document is not a genuine document because the examination of the signatures marked Ext.-A when compared to the body writing marked 'A/1' reveals anachronistic features and under Video Spectral Comparator it was found that the body writing marked 'A/1' was written over the signature marked A which was already existing. This would indicate that the signatures were taken on a blank paper and thereafter, the bland paper was filled in." 34. In respect of that part of the opinion he was cross examined by the learned counsel of the plaintiff and in cross examination he made the following statement: "I cannot admit or deny whether Sri Manaidra Kishore Paul was present when the document was written. In respect of that part of the opinion he was cross examined by the learned counsel of the plaintiff and in cross examination he made the following statement: "I cannot admit or deny whether Sri Manaidra Kishore Paul was present when the document was written. It is true that this question No.4 was not referred to me by the Court but keeping in view the nature of the reference made to me, I have given my opinion on this issue also. Question:- When this question was not referred to you I put it to you that you have not scientifically examined the document to determine what writing was put earlier and what writing was put later? Answer:- though this question was not referred to me, keeping in view the nature of the reference made to me in the Court, I thought it proper to inform the Court which writing is earlier and for that purpose I conducted a test under the Video Spectral Comparator." 35. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with opinion of Expert which reads as follows:- "45. Opinions of experts.-When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts." 36. Regarding experience and qualification of the handwriting expert no question was put by either party. So we may appreciate that the hand writing expert was having with a proper qualification and experience on the issue and he was an expert in respect of handwriting. This Court referred to the handwriting expert the signature of the defendant appeared in Exhibit-8 to compare with his other signatures appeared in other admitted documents and the handwriting expert examined and opined that it was of Manindra Kishore Paul, i.e. the defendant, which is not disputed by the defendant before this Court. 37. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that he did not execute any such money receipt. So he denied the execution of Exhibit-8 as a whole. That means he did not sign any such document. 37. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that he did not execute any such money receipt. So he denied the execution of Exhibit-8 as a whole. That means he did not sign any such document. There is no case of the defendant that the plaintiff obtained his signature in a white stamp paper on any earlier occasion and that has been used by the plaintiff. In the absence of any such pleading or evidence from the side of the defendant, the mere opinion of the handwriting expert cannot form the basis of discarding the entire document while the contents of the documents has been proved by the scribe and the other witnesses. 38. Opinion of the handwriting expert is obtained by the Court only to assist the Court in arriving at a correct decision in respect of a disputed writing. An expert is not a witness of fact. The evidence of an expert is advisory in character. The duty of an expert is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for deciding the accuracy of the action so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of those criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence is to be accepted or refused in consideration of other evidences on record. A mere opinion of the scientific expert will not form the basis of either accepting or rejecting a fact. The credibility of an expert depends on the reasons stated in respect of his conclusion and the materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusion. 39. The Supreme Court in case of Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 221 (249) observed that "a court is not bound by the evidence of an expert which is to a large extent advisory in nature. The Court must derive its own conclusion upon considering the opinion of the expert which may be adduced by both sides, cautiously, and upon taking into consideration the authorities on the point on which he deposes". 40. In the case at hand, the opinion in para 4 of the report was given by the handwriting expert uncalled for. However, there is no law that he cannot give his observation. 40. In the case at hand, the opinion in para 4 of the report was given by the handwriting expert uncalled for. However, there is no law that he cannot give his observation. He has assigned the reason that he made examination under Video Spectrum Comparator but no authority to that aspect has been referred. That part of the opinion is very technical in nature. Unless it is corroborated by any other item of evidence it is very difficult to depend on such stray opinion of the expert and to throw doubt on the whole case of the plaintiff. 41. In the case of Tomaso Bruno (supra) the Supreme Court in para 40 observed : "40. The courts, normally would look at expert evidence with a greater sense of acceptability, but it is equally true that the courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially if such reports are perfunctory and unsustainable. We agree that the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a final conclusion but such report is not a conclusive one. This Court is expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not. As discussed earlier, serious doubts arise about the cause of death stated in the post-mortem reports." 42. As already stated hereinbefore, the plaintiff asserted his claim contending in his pleadings and evidences that Exhibit-8 was executed by the defendant, written by PW2 in presence of PWs 3 & 4 and the plaintiff and his witnesses proved the fact. The signature in Exhibit-8 compared by the handwriting expert with the admitted signatures of the defendant in other documents on record and found to be identical. The other part of the observation of the handwriting expert that the document was not genuine and that it was built-up document on the ground that hand writing expert found it on examination that the documents had anachronistic feature is a technical opinion given by the handwriting expert and that technical opinion has not been substantiated by any other item of evidence on record since the defendant nowhere stated that his signature in blank stamp paper was obtained and the document was created on any such blank unsigned stamp paper. 43. 43. It is a settled proposition of law that the opinion evidence which is relevant may be worthy of acceptance if there is internal or external evidence related to the document in question supporting the view expressed by the expert. The expert opinion, specially with respect to handwriting, in our considered opinion, must always be received with great care and caution. There must be some other direct or indirect cogent & legal evidence to entertain and consider the opinion evidence of the expert. In the absence of any such evidence expert opinion cannot form the basis for arriving at a conclusion on any issue. Further, the evidence of a handwriting expert is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The court should therefore be weary to give too much weight to the evidence of the handwriting expert. 44. The observation of the handwriting expert that the signature in the document marked Exhibit-8 was of the defendant Manindra Kishore Paul has been corroborated by the other evidence on record adduced by the plaintiff and that part of the handwriting expert's report seems to be corroborative with other evidence on record and may readily be accepted. The other part of the opinion of the handwriting expert that the document revealed anachronistic feature and therefore the document was a built-up document cannot be accepted since there is no supporting pleading or evidence to appreciate that opinion of the expert. We therefore hold that the trial court rightly relied on Exhibit-8. 45. It is true that according to the plaintiff the payment of Rs.7,25,000/- was made on 28.02.2008 but on that date no document was executed. Exhibit-8 was executed on 26.08.2008 stating that repayment should be made within six months from 28.02.2008. That makes confusion as to why the document was executed on 26.08.2008. The plaintiff did not state anything in his pleadings or evidence as to why it was executed on 26.08.2008. The defendant simply denied the execution of any such document and in his cross examination he stated- "It is a fact that I did not deny specifically the signature in the name of Manindra Kishore Pal appeared in the money receipt (exbt 8/1) as of mine. The defendant simply denied the execution of any such document and in his cross examination he stated- "It is a fact that I did not deny specifically the signature in the name of Manindra Kishore Pal appeared in the money receipt (exbt 8/1) as of mine. The signature in the name of Manindra Kishore Pal appeared in exbt.8/1 is shown to the witness and he stated that at present he is not sure as to whether he put signature as of him." 46. PWs 2, 3 & 4 were all independent witnesses and proved Exhibit-8 with material evidence. Though it is not clarified by the plaintiff as to why the document was executed on 26.08.2008 but since in all preponderance of probabilities it appears to be a document executed by the defendant, we are of considered opinion that the trial court rightly put reliance on that document. 47. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that on 27.03.2009 he and PW2 visited the house of the defendant and the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 0833874 drawn on Tripura Gramin Bank, Ambassa Branch for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- and that cheque the plaintiff deposited in his account of Tripura Gramin Bank. The cheque was dishonoured. The defendant in his cross-examination made the following statement: "I have maintained an A/C No. 6800 in Tripura Gramin Bank, Ambassa Branch. One cheque Book including cheque No.0833874 was issued in favour of me in connection with A/C No.6800 by the Bank. I have in profession of business for last 20-25 years specially deals with contract works. The counter foil of cheque bearing No.0833874 is not furnished by me. It is a fact that I maintained details of cheque used by me in the counter foils of the cheque. Nothing has been written in my WS as to how the alleged cheque bearing No.SB A/C 0933874 was in the hand of the plaintiff." 48. It is not in dispute that the defendant was issued a cheque book by the bank in connection with his Account No. 6800 and Exhibit-1 is a cheque from that cheque book. It was the duty of the defendant to explain as to how Exhibit 1 went to the hand of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his witnesses proved that the defendant issued the cheque. That cheque was dishonoured is an admitted position. It was the duty of the defendant to explain as to how Exhibit 1 went to the hand of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his witnesses proved that the defendant issued the cheque. That cheque was dishonoured is an admitted position. Though the criminal case has failed, the cheque may be used for other collateral purpose, i.e. for the purpose of civil suit and in all preponderance of probabilities this inference may be drawn that the defendant issued cheque from his cheque book differentiating his signature given in the bank with a view to deceive the plaintiff and that cheque has been dishonoured. It proves the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff made advance of the amount as claimed by him and otherwise the defendant had no reason to issue such a cheque from his cheque book. No doubt it is supporting the case of the plaintiff. The trial court made correct observation in respect of Exhibit-1, i.e. the cheque. 49. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court rightly decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff and rightly decreed the suit. 50. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs throughout. Send back the LC records along with a copy of this judgment.