ORDER : 1. By this writ petition the plaintiff has challenged the order of the trial Court dated 18-10-2016 whereby the petitioner’s application dated 26-7-2016 objecting to the report of the handwriting expert submitted by the respondent and making a prayer to permit the petitioner to obtain the report from another handwriting expert has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent had obtained the report of the handwriting expert on the basis of signature similar to the signature in the pro-note, therefore report of the handwriting expert submitted by the respondent cannot be accepted and in rebuttal the petitioner should be given an opportunity to submit the report of the handwriting expert obtained by him. 3. Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that so far as the petitioner's objection to the report of handwriting expert submitted by the respondent, the trial Court has rightly held that petitioner will have opportunity to counter the same at the stage of evidence. So far as the petitioner’s prayer for granting permission to obtain report of his own handwriting expert is concerned, the said issue has not been properly dealt with by the trial Court. Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Usha Sharma vs. Maharaj Kishan Raina and Another, 2010 (1) MPJR 22 has held as under:- “It is true that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitutions if limited to see that inferior Court or the Tribunal functions within the limit of the authority provided to it. However, if the function of inferior Court appears erroneous to the extent showing its working not as per the authority, then of course the hands of this Court are not closed. Proper function of the Courts working under this Court also required to be seen as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus (supra). In our considered opinion, denying desired opportunity to the petitioner for rebuttal is not justified. Particularly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in which according to the petitioner a fraud has been played by the respondents while shaking hands with each other with regard to property belonging to her. Yunus (supra). In our considered opinion, denying desired opportunity to the petitioner for rebuttal is not justified. Particularly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in which according to the petitioner a fraud has been played by the respondents while shaking hands with each other with regard to property belonging to her. According to her, the respondent No. 1 filed a collusive suit for specific performance against the respondent No. 2 and in Lok Adalat on compromise, the respondent No. 1 has obtained decree behind the back of the petitioner. When one party has been provided and has availed an opportunity to produce opinion of a handwriting expert in his favour, the request of the opposite party for producing the similar type of evidence in rebuttal, appears appropriate. As observed in the case of Babulal (supra), such a course is not prohibited by law. As per observation of this Court in the case of Jai Narayan (supra) the opposite party should also be allowed to adduce evidence in rebuttal under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similar view appears has been taken by the another Single Bench of this Court in case of Rajendra Singh (supra) which was also a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The judgment cited on behalf of the respondents are with regard to Commissioner’s report under Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Code. Both the provisions are different. Under Order 26 of Civil Procedure Code, commissions are to be issued for examination of witnesses, or for local investigation or scientific investigation, etc. The present dispute is related to seeking and filing of an opinion of an expert which is admissible in evidence under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. If report of a particular expert, is against the interest of opposite party, on request, such opposite party also deserves to be permitted to call such report in rebuttal. No doubt some times cross examination of the expert concerned with the help of another expert, may serve the purpose, but not always. Even on the principle of natural justice, party ought not to and cannot be denied an opportunity of the similar nature.” 5. Though the trial Court has noted the aforesaid judgment but has wrongly distinguished it on facts without considering the ratio of the said judgment. Even on the principle of natural justice, party ought not to and cannot be denied an opportunity of the similar nature.” 5. Though the trial Court has noted the aforesaid judgment but has wrongly distinguished it on facts without considering the ratio of the said judgment. Similarly in the matter of Jai Narayan vs. Satya Narayan and Others, 1991 JLJ 428 , this Court has held that if the defendant has adduced the handwriting expert's report in his evidence, then the plaintiff should be allowed to produce evidence in rebuttal. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, part of the order of the trial Court rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for permission to obtain his own handwriting expert’s report is hereby set aside and trial Court is directed to consider the said prayer afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid judgments. 7. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.