JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner who is daughter of original defendant in Title Suit No.56 of 2004 is aggrieved of order dated 28.02.2012 by which application for sending the money receipt for examination of signature of the original defendant has been refused. 2. The petitioner after death of her father was substituted in his place along with respondent nos. 2 and 3. The suit was instituted for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 26.12.1999. The original agreement has not been brought on record. The petitioner-defendant no.3 filed her written statement denying execution of any agreement by the original defendant, her father. After the parties led their evidence and the suit was posted for final arguments, an application was filed on 18.01.2012 for sending Exhibits-''A'' and ''E'' for comparison with Exhibit-2 by a handwriting expert. This application has been rejected by the trial judge on the ground that photo-copy of a document cannot be sent for scientific investigation. 3. Not only the reason for rejection of the aforesaid application is correct, it needs to be indicated that it is primarily for the plaintiff to prove that father of the petitioner had executed an agreement and the money receipt bears his signature. Moreover, if stand of defendant no.3 as pleaded in the written statement is taken note of, after the parties have closed their evidence and the suit was posted for final arguments, in my opinion, the suit must be decided on the basis of materials on record. 4. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.02.2012, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it shall remain open to the petitioner to raise all plea as available to her in law.