ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by order dated 23.8.2018 passed by trial Court; whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner as defendant under section 45 of the Evidence Act has been rejected. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for eviction against the present petitioner and two others. Petitioner has resisted the suit of eviction by filing written statement. Plaintiffs have asserted the fact that petitioner was the tenant of the plaintiffs and vide receipt for month 1.6.1991 to 30.6.1991 and receipt for 1st October, 1991 to 31st December, 1991, contain two different signatures. One signature was ascribed to by petitioner and another was denied to be signed. This fact came over surface in the testimony of petitioner while deposing before the Court, therefore, for clarity purpose, an application under section 45 of Evidence Act was filed for verification of signatures through Hand Writing Expert. Trial Court after considering the application, rejected the same, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner when petitioner in para 26 of his testimony has categorically stated that document Ex. P-16 does not contain his signature then it is a specific denial, therefore, it ought to have been considered by the trial Court. Further, while consideration of application, the findings given by the trial Court are perverse and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From perusal of order of trial Court, it appears that a separate MJC vide MJC No. 355/2018 is registered in respect of said document Ex. P-16 and trial Court therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that if the defendant wanted to get the document examined then the application could have been field in the said MJC. Beside that when the plaintiff has exhibited the said document in his evidence, at that point of time, this application ought to have been filed by the petitioner. After the evidence of defendant, this application has been filed, which is a much belated stage. The deposition of the defendant carried two different versions- one in para 19 and another in para 26. After the evidence of defendant, this application has been filed, which is a much belated stage. The deposition of the defendant carried two different versions- one in para 19 and another in para 26. Initially in para 19, petitioner did not in categorical terms deny the signature over the document and later on in para 26, he tried to submit his ignorance about the signature. Both these inconsistent stands take away the sheen of equity from the defendant side. 6. Trial Court rightly passed the impugned order; whereby, the application of petitioner under section 45 of Evidence Act has been rejected. 7. Even otherwise, trial Court is competent to verify the signatures over documents on its own as per the provisions of Evidence Act. 8. No case for interference is made out, petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.