ORDER : The plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 28th March, 2015 on IA made in OS No.26635 of 2007 rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration contending that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property and the sale agreement dated 26th May 2003 made in favour of the second defendant, power of attorney dated 08th March 2004 made in favour of defendant No.1; and sale deed 07th December 2004 made in favour of the second defendant and the sale dated 18th October 2006 made in favour of defendants No.3, 4 and 5 are invalid and the defendants have, in any manner no right, title or interest in the suit property; and for permanent injunction contending that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule. 3. The Defendants filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit. After completion of evidence on both sides, and when the matter was posted for arguments, at that stage, the plaintiff filed application under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to send Exhibit D1 the alleged power of attorney to the handwriting expert for scientific investigation to compare the signature on pages 1 and 2 with that of page No.3 and also compare the fonts of pages 1 and 2 of the said Exhibit D1 with that of page 3 and to give report. It was the specific contention taken in the plaint that Exhibit D1 was not executed by the plaintiff but have executed power of attorney only to avail loan but not to sell the suit schedule property, which is not produced by the defendant with mala fide intention in order to cheat the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 has replaced pages 1 and 2 and the signature on page 1 and 2 of Exhibit D1 has been forged retaining page No.3. The signatures on pages 1 and 2 on said Exhibit D1 are denied. Therefore, it is sought to allow the application as prayed for. 4. The defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 has replaced pages 1 and 2 and the signature on page 1 and 2 of Exhibit D1 has been forged retaining page No.3. The signatures on pages 1 and 2 on said Exhibit D1 are denied. Therefore, it is sought to allow the application as prayed for. 4. The said application was opposed by the defendants No.3 to 5 and contended that the application filed by the plaintiff lack both bonafide and merits and is nothing but protracting the proceedings. In the objections it is further contended by the defendants that in the evidence of PW1 in the cross-examination the power of attorney was confronted to her and thereafter it was marked Exhibit D1. She, in unequivocal terms, admitted that page No.1 of Exhibit D1 bears her signature. Though she denied the signatures on pages No.2 and 3. The plaintiff’s son was examined as PW2, in the cross-examination he was confronted with the signatures found on Exhibit D1. He, in an unequivocal terms, admitted the signature found on page 3 of Exhibit D1 as his Mother’s signature, i.e. the signature of plaintiff. In the course of cross-examination, PW.2 also candidly admitted Exhibit D1, if read as a whole, indicates that it is one complete document. He also admitted that the said Exhibit D1 as witness and his signature found in page No.3 of Exhibit D1. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, if read as a whole, it leaves no doubt that Exhibit D1 bears the signatures of the plaintiff. In other words, evidence on record leaves no doubt that the plaintiff has executed Exhibit D1, and hence, sought for dismissal of the application. 5. The Trial Court, considering the application and the objections, by the impugned order dated 28th March 2015, rejected the application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Shri Irshad Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Shri Irshad Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the Trial Court, while rejecting the application, misdirected itself without taking into consideration the specific pleadings on record and that the alleged power of attorney dated 08th March 2004 is not executed by the petitioner authorizing the first respondent to sell the plaint schedule property and the signatures found on pages No.1 and 2 of the alleged power of attorney Exhibit D1 is a forged one and also the evidence tendered before the Court. The signatures on pages No.1 and 2 of the power of attorney is denied. It is submitted that the Trial Court has not considered the said fact and proceeded to pass the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel further contends that the fonts on pages 1 and 2 with that of page 3 of Exhibit D1 does not tally. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. To compare the signature of the petitioner on pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit D1 with that of the alleged signature available on records like vakalat, pleadings, enable the petitioner to establish the real facts of forging the signature of the petitioner on pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit D1. The Trial Court has not considered those things in proper perspective while dismissing the application. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the Trial Court by allowing the present writ petition. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) v. PALI RAM reported in AIR 1979 SC 14 (1) to the effect that, it is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury. The Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials. The Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials. Ordinarily, it is not proper for the Court to ask the expert to give his finding upon any issues, whether of law or fact, because strictly speaking such issues are for the Court or jury to determine. The handwriting expert's function is to opine after a scientific comparison of the disputed writing with the proved or admitted writing with regard to the points of similarity and dissimilarity in the two sets of writings. The Court should then compare the handwritings with its own eyes for a proper assessment of the value of the total evidence. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 10. Per contra, Shri Varadarajan, the learned counsel for the defendants sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the PW.2 admitted signatures on pages 1 and 3 of Exhibit D1. PW.1 admitted the signature on page No.1 but disputed the signature on page 3 of Exhibit D1. PW.2the son of the plaintiff, admitted the signature of his mother on page No.3. PW.2 has also admitted that the pages No.1 to 3 of Exhibit D1 are one and the same. Hence, he contends that the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. Therefore, this court cannot interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore he sought to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is undisputed fact that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration to declare various sale deeds executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No.3, 4 and 5 are invalid and defendants have in any manner no right, title or interest in the property and she is the owner and in possession of the same. The same is disputed by the defendants by filing written statement. It is also not in dispute that the after completion of evidence on both sides and when the matter was posted for arguments, at that stage, the present application came to be filed for referring the Power of Attorney to an handwriting expert and to compare the fonts of pages 1 and 2 with that of page 3 of Exhibit D1 and to give report. In paragraph 15 of the plaint, the execution of General Power of Attorney has been admitted only for securing loan from any Scheduled Bank to her son and the defendants No.1 and 2 have neither arranged loan nor returned back the General Power of Attorney. It is further contended at paragraph 17 of the plaint that the plaintiff has not executed any Power of Attorney in favour of anybody to sell the schedule property and the Power of Attorney dated 08th March 2004 relied upon by the defendant is false, concocted and fabricated one. It is neither executed nor signed by the plaintiff. The signatures on pages No.1 and 2 therein alleged to be of the plaintiff are forged and its contents are false and fabricated. The said document is fraudulent and forged and liable to be held as null, void and invalid. 12. The said assertions made in the plaint, were specifically denied by the defendants in the written statement at paragraphs 14 and 16, and was contended that Exhibit D1 is executed by the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has been examined as PW1. She admitted the signature on page No.1 and disputed signature on pages No.2 and 3 of Exhibit D1. PW.2her son who is the witness to Exhibit D1 has been examined, has admitted the signature of his mother on page No.3. He also admitted that (IN OTHER LANGUAGE) 13. It is also not in dispute that while marking Exhibit D1 containing pages 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, who is also the counsel before this Court in this petition, has not opposed the marking of Exhibit D1 containing pages 1 to 3 on the ground that the pages 1 and 2 are forged pages and has allowed the marking of entire document; PW1 admitted page 1; PW.2 admitted entire Exhibit D1 and also admitted page 3. Now it is not open for the learned counsel for the plaintiff to contend that pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit D1 are forged one when PW1 and PW2 have admitted the signatures on pages 1 and 3 of Exhibit D1. The dispute is only in respect of page 2 of Exhibit D1. Now it is not open for the learned counsel for the plaintiff to contend that pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit D1 are forged one when PW1 and PW2 have admitted the signatures on pages 1 and 3 of Exhibit D1. The dispute is only in respect of page 2 of Exhibit D1. In view of the above, when PW2 the witness to Exhibit D1, admitted that Exhibit D1 which contains page 1 to 3 are one and the same, the Court can always compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signature of the PW 1 & 2 by exercising power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 14. The Trial Court, considering the application and objections, has recorded the finding that “I have perused the crossexamination of PW1. The learned counsel for the defendant has confronted General Power of Attorney to PW1 wherein she has admitted her signature on page 1 of Exhibit D1. So the document is marked as Exhibit D1. She has denied her signature on pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit D1. PW2 the son of the plaintiff, in his crossexamination has clearly stated that the signature found on page 3 of Exhibit D1 is the signature of his mother. PW1 the plaintiff, who is the petitioner in this case, in her crossexamination has clearly admitted that the signature found on page 1 of Exhibit D1 is her signature. PW2 who is the son of PW1 admitted that the signature on page 3 of Exhibit D1, is the signature of his mother. They have only disputed the signature of the plaintiff on page 2. But, it is the case of the plaintiff that signatures found on pages 1 and 2 are forged one. But in the crossexamination, she has admitted that the signature on page 1 is her signature. On perusal of crossexamination of PW2, it is clearly stated therein that Exhibit D1, if read as a whole, indicates that it is one complete document.” Considering the evidence available on record, the court was of the opinion that there was no necessity to send the said document for handwriting expert or for scientific investigation. The evidence available on record suffice to decide the controversy between the parties and accordingly has rejected the application. The same is in accordance with law. 15. The evidence available on record suffice to decide the controversy between the parties and accordingly has rejected the application. The same is in accordance with law. 15. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of PALI RAM (supra), there is no quarrel with regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 73 and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The facts of the said case and the facts of the case on hand are entirely different. In view of the admission made by PW1 and PW2 in the crossexamination with regard to pages 1 and 3 of Exhibit D1, the said case has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction to declare some of the sale deeds executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Defendants No.3, 4 and 5 are invalid. Ultimately, it is for the plaintiff to establish the case based on the oral documents and evidence on record. When the Trial Court has recorded a specific finding while rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure that the evidence available on record suffice to decide the controversy between the parties, and admittedly when the matter was posted for arguments, the application came to be filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which rightly came to be rejected by the Trial Court. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/.