ORDER 1. Rejection of an application under section 45 of Evidence Act seeking handwriting expert's opinion as to signature of Mansha Singh on compromise/rajinama dated 27.6.1992 (Ex-D-2) has led the plaintiff file this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The trial Court rejected the application holding that the plaintiffs can prove that the signatures are not of Mansha Singh through other mode:- ^^fufoZokfnr :i ls LoŒ ea'kkflag dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS vkSj ftl jkthukek fnukafdr 27-6-1992 ¼ÁŒMhŒ 1½ dks fookfnr fd;k x;k gS] ml ij LoŒ ea'kkflag ds gLrk{kj gksuk lk{kh gjn;ky ,oa vU; Áfroknhx.k us ÁdV fd;k gS vkSj mDr nLrkost dh lR;rk dks vf/k{ksfir djus ds laca/k esa ,dek= fodYi gLrys[k fo'ks"kK dh vfHklk{; gh oknhx.k ds ikl ugha gSA oknhx.k vius i{k dFku dks vU; ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth vfHklk{; ls Hkh lkfcr dj ldrs gSa ftldk muds ikl volj gS ijUrq muds }kjk ,slh dksbZ vfHklk{; u ÁLrqr djrs gq;s fo'ks"kK ds vfHker dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS vkSj mDr laca/k esa fo'ks"kK vfHker gsrq dksbZ vkns'k fn;k tkuk bl U;k;ky; ds er esa lehphu ugha gSA Qyr% mDr laca/k esa vkosnu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. Section 45 of Evidence Act mandates that 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. 4. Furthermore, section 67 of Evidence Act provides that if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. 5. A Division Bench of this High Court had an occasion to examine the scope of section 67 of Evidence Act in L.S. Trading Company, Gwalior and another v. Manish Mishra [ 2010 (III) MPWN 2 = 2010 (4) MPLJ 228 ]; wherein it was observed by their Lordships : "5. There are several modes to get a document proved. 5. A Division Bench of this High Court had an occasion to examine the scope of section 67 of Evidence Act in L.S. Trading Company, Gwalior and another v. Manish Mishra [ 2010 (III) MPWN 2 = 2010 (4) MPLJ 228 ]; wherein it was observed by their Lordships : "5. There are several modes to get a document proved. While examining the scope of section 67 of the Evidence Act we find that there cannot be any straight jacket formula or any particular mode of proving a particular document or handwriting or signature. Section 67 of the Evidence Act is the relevant provision in respect to the proof of signature and handwriting of a person. According to us, following are the modes for proving a document: "(i) By calling a person who signed or wrote a document; (ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written; (iii) By calling handwriting expert; (iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written; (v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signatures or handwriting with some admitted signatures or writing; (vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or write it; (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person; A signature is also proved to have been made, if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some other person, e.g. by the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant; (viii) By other circumstantial evidence." In this context we may profitably place reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Kishan Prasad v. M.P. Government through Collector, Vidisha, 1983 MPLJ 355 = 1983 JLJ 474 in which the another Single Bench decision of this Court Ramibai v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1981 MPLJ 192 = 1981 JLJ 388 has been placed reliance. Indeed, this exercise ought to have been done by the plaintiff, but if the defendants have moved an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act to get the handwriting examined, in absence of any specific bar in Civil Procedure Code, according to us, learned trial Court has arbitrarily dismissed the application without applying its proper mind on the facts and circumstances of the case." 6. Since one of the mode for proving a document is by calling hand writing expert, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application on the finding that the plaintiffs can invoke other mode. There being a failure in exercise of jurisdiction, the impugned order is set aside. The subject application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is allowed. Let steps be taken in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of finally.