JUDGMENT : 1. Draft Amendment is allowed. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Mr.Salil M. Thakore, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 3. On a request being made by learned advocates for the respective parties, this matter is heard finally today. 4. By preferring this petition, petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 19.06.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad below application at Exh.263 in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018 and has further prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad below application at Exh.262 in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018 at Annexure-F and further prayed to stay the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad below application at Exh.262 in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018 at Annexure-F. 5. The short facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under: 5.1 The petitioner is the original defendant no.5 and the respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and the respondent nos.2 to 5 are the original defendant nos.1 to 4 in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2015. 5.2 The plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018 for specific performance, cancellation of sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction with respect to land baring Revenue Survey No.241/2, Block No.397 admeasuring 7183 sq. mtrs situated at Mouje Village Masma, Tal.: Olpad, Dist.: Surat. 5.3 After completion of the deposition of plaintiff, in order to fill up the lacuna which the plaintiff was unable to prove, on 05.03.2021, the plaintiff has moved an application at Exh.262 in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018 under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a direction (i) directing the defendant no.5 to appear before the Court and to provide finger prints of both the hands on a green ledger paper and (ii) to refer the matter to the Commissioner and send the specimen samples to Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar and call for the report to decide whether the thumb impression shown on right side of defendant no.5’s photo on Page-9 of Exh.165 and the finger prints provided by the defendant no.5 before the Court is of the same person or not. 5.4 The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Olpad allowed the application filed by the plaintiff vide order dated 24.03.2021 below Exh.262, whereby directed the defendant no.5 to appear before the Court and provide finger prints of both the hands on a green ledger papers. 5.5 In view of the order dated 24.03.2021 passed below Exh.262, the defendant no.5 appeared before the Court and provided the finger prints of both his hands and the procedure as per the said order is going on. 5.6 Thereafter, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad, vide order dated 19.06.2021, allowed the application filed at Exh.263. In view of the order dated 19.06.2021 passed below application filed at Exh.263, the plaintiff has given a notice through whatsapp dated 28.07.2021 to the defendant no.5’s advocate directing the defendant no.5 to remain present before the handwriting expert on 29.07.2021. Thereafter, on 30.07.2021, the plaintiff has filed a pursis in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018 stating that the plaintiff has informed vide letter dated 29.07.2021 to the appointed handwriting expert. 5.7 According to the petitioner, the Court has exceeded discretionary jurisdiction vested upon him and allowed the application at Exh.263 beyond the prayers prayed for. Thus, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 19.06.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad below application at Exh.263 in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC and directed the defendant no.5 to remain present before the Commissioner, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar for giving specimen signature even though the plaintiff sought a prayer directing the defendant no.5 to remain present before the Court for giving specimen signature, the defendant no.5 has filed this petition. 6. Heard Mr.Viral K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Tatvdeep J. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Salil M. Thakore, learned advocate for the respondent. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge has exceeded its inherent powers and discretionary jurisdiction vested upon him and allowed the application at Exh.263 beyond the prayers prayed for and directed the defendant no.5 to remain present before the Commissioner, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar for giving specimen signature even though the plaintiff sought a prayer directing the defendant no.5 to remain present before the Court for giving specimen signature. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that Section 73 of the Evidence Act has conferred power upon the Court to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature in order to ascertain whether the disputed signature is genuine, or not. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court, then there is no necessity for taking help of an expert as per provision of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In that case, there is no necessity to send the disputed signature to an expert under Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that in view of the order dated 24.03.2021 passed below Exh.262, the defendant no.5 already appeared before the Court and provided the finger prints of both his hands and the procedure as per the said order is going on. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by directing the defendant no.5 to remain present before the handwriting expert at Gandhinagar and to provide the specimen signature in an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the opinion of the handwriting expert is nothing but a piece of evidence and it is for the Court to arrive its own decision on apprehension of the entire material available on record. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.06.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad below application at Exh.263 in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018 at Annexure-A. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Ningamma and another Vs. Chikkaiah and another reported in AIR 2000 Karnataka 50. 8. Learned advocate for the respondent submits that the Trial Court has committed no error in allowing the application at Exh.:262 as well as Exh.263 filed by the plaintiff vide orders dated 24.03.2021 and 19.06.2021 considering the issue involved in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Chikkaiah and another reported in AIR 2000 Karnataka 50. 8. Learned advocate for the respondent submits that the Trial Court has committed no error in allowing the application at Exh.:262 as well as Exh.263 filed by the plaintiff vide orders dated 24.03.2021 and 19.06.2021 considering the issue involved in the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the suit is mainly on the basis of two documents i.e. (i) Satakhat dated 10.02.2006 executed between defendant no.2 and defendant no.5 (Exh.165) and (ii) agreement dated 20.06.2011 (Exh.176). It is further submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance and other reliefs on the basis of the above documents and the petitioner, being defendant no.5, disputed both the above documents in his written statement containing that they are forged and there is no thumb impression and signature made by him. It is further submitted that as thumb impression and signature were denied and disputed by the defendant no.5, a request was made by the plaintiff for getting two documents examined by the handwriting expert and compared with specimen signatures and thumb impressions. It is further submitted that the Trial Court thought it fit to direct that the documents would examine by an independent Government Laboratory viz. FSL and further directed that the expert will compare specimen handwriting and specimen thumb impression with the documents. It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 has given his thumb impression and FSL report is also received by the Civil Court in June-2021 as per the order passed below Exh.247 dated 18.02.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also given his thumb impression in July-2021 and complied with the order passed below Exh.262. That the Civil Court has also sent specimen signature as well as original documents at Exh.165 to FSL for comparison and FSL Report is awaited. It is further submitted that it is necessary to give specimen handwriting/signature of the present petitioner in presence of handwriting expert from FSL so that handwriting expert can ask the petitioner to write words in different sizes, on paper that the expert deems necessary for examination. Referring Rule 10(A) of Order 26 of the CPC, it is submitted that the Court is empowered for issuance of commission for scientific investigation, (i.e.) for the purpose of corresponding to the one mentioned in clause (e) of Section 75 of the CPC. Referring Rule 10(A) of Order 26 of the CPC, it is submitted that the Court is empowered for issuance of commission for scientific investigation, (i.e.) for the purpose of corresponding to the one mentioned in clause (e) of Section 75 of the CPC. It is further submitted that there are some technical investigations which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court. The discretion has been vested in the Civil Court to get any scientific investigation conducted only if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. It is further submitted that as truth and determining the controversy is raised in the dispute before the Court, such investigation through handwriting expert was necessary. It is further submitted that under article 227 of the Constitution of India, Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct al specifies of hardship or wrong decisions. It is further submitted that there is no gross injustice likely to be caused to the present petitioner if handwriting expert would get the finger prints of the petitioner or thumb impression for comparison of the documents. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the respondent to dismiss the present petition. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as documents produced on record, itappears that initially, the petitioner challenged the order passed below Exh.263 dated 19.06.2021. Along with the petition, the petitioner produced copy of the order passed below Exh.262 dated 24.03.2021 in Special Civil Suit No.140 of 2018 which was not challenged when the petition was filed. At the time of final hearing of the petition, on 24.09.2021, the petitioner sought permission by way of draft amendment to challenge the order passed below Exh.262 dated 24.03.2021. It also appears from the record that the plaintiff initially filed one application Exh.247 praying that specimen thumb impression of the defendant no.2 be compared by expert with thumb impression appearing on Satakhat dated 10.02.2006 at Exh.165 executed between defendant no.2 and defendant no.5. The Trial Court allowed the application at Exh.243 vide order dated 18.02.202 directing the FSL to compare the specimen thumb impression with Satakhat dated 10.02.2016 and submit a report. The Trial Court allowed the application at Exh.243 vide order dated 18.02.202 directing the FSL to compare the specimen thumb impression with Satakhat dated 10.02.2016 and submit a report. As per the submissions made by learned advocate for the respondent, thumb impression was given by the defendant no.2 and report is also received by the Civil Court in June-2021 which is not a subject matter of the Court as ordered is not challenged. Thereafter, the original plaintiff filed an application Exh.262 praying that specimen thumb impression be compared by expert with thumb impression appearing on Satakhat dated 10.02.2006 at Exh.165 executed between defendant no.2 and defendant no.5. The Trial Court allowed the application Exh.262 vide order dated 24.03.2021 directing the FSL to compare specimen thumb impression with Satakhat dated 10.02.2016. As per the order passed below Exh.262, as submitted by learned advocate for the respondent, thumb impression was given by defendant no.5 (present petitioner) in July-2021 and complied with the order as admitted in Paragraph-2.7 of the petition. Learned advocate for the respondent has further submitted that the Civil court has sent specimen as well as original documents at Exh.165 to FSL for comparison in July-2021 and FSL report is awaited by the Civil court. Admittedly, when this petition was filed on 17.08.2021, order passed below Exh.262 by the Civil Court was not challenged and thereafter, draft amendment was sought at a final hearing of the petition on 24.09.2021. Prima facie there is reason to believe that the order passed below Exh.262 is already complied with by the petitioner. However, FSL report is awaited by the Civil Court. It appears from the record that the plaintiff filed another application at Exh.263 with a prayer that specimen signature/handwriting expert of defendant no.5 be taken by handwriting expert and compared with handwriting appearing on agreement dated 20.06.2011 at Exh.176. The Court-below allowed the application at Exh.:263 vide order dated 19.06.2021 directing the handwriting expert of Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar to take the specimen signatures/handwriting of the defendant no.5 in the manner and on paper, he deems appropriate and compare the specimens with the signature/handwriting appearing on the document at Exh.176. The order passed below Exh.263 by the Trial Court is not complied with as it is challenged before this Court. The order passed below Exh.263 by the Trial Court is not complied with as it is challenged before this Court. Considering the issue raised in the suit preferred by the plaintiff and two documents at Exhs.165 and 176, the petitioner has disputed his signature, therefore, it would be necessary that handwriting expert would observe the specimen handwriting/signature in his presence as it deems fit. Section 73 of the Evidence Act certainly permits the Civil Court to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written any writing admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write in words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. The Court in the case of a disputed writing, is competent to obtain an exemplar or specimen writing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram reported in (1979) 2 SCC 158 , has observed in Paragraph No.30 as under: “30. The matter can be viewed from another angle, also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence solely on comparison made by himself. It is, therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert.” 10. The Hon’ble Madras High Court, in the case of Mr.M. Venkataswamy (deceased) Vs. Mrs. Mythira Devi and others (in C.R.P. (PD) No.1275 of 2010), has observed in Paragraph Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 as under: “14. The Hon’ble Madras High Court, in the case of Mr.M. Venkataswamy (deceased) Vs. Mrs. Mythira Devi and others (in C.R.P. (PD) No.1275 of 2010), has observed in Paragraph Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 as under: “14. Indeed, the Court has discretion to grant commission but the discretion has to be examined judicially and not whimsically and it has to be exercised in aid of justice and not only for the benefit of a party to litigation. 15. Rule 10(A) of Order 26 of C.P.C., deals with the issuance of Commission for scientific investigation (i.e.,) for the purpose of corresponding to the one mentioned in clause-e of Section 75 of C.P.C. There are such technical investigation which cannot in the opinion of the Court be conveniently be conducted before the Court. 16. It is obvious to note here that Rule-10 (A) has been inserted in Order 26 C.P.C., as a consequence of amendment in Section 75, wherein clause (e) to (g) have been inserted by C.P.C. Amendment of 1976. 17. From the provisions of Rule 10(A), it is clear that a discretion has been vested in the civil court to get any scientific investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. The basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the Court then such an investigation could be permitted. The basic idea is whether such scientific investigation is going to advance the cause of justice and would be necessary for adjudication for the rights of the parties. Therefore, this Court is under the obligation to see as to whether there is any ground to interfere with in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. As stated in the fore going paragraphs, it is the case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff that her name is only Mythira devi and not Delli bai.” 11. In the similar facts of the case of suit for specific performance of contract based upon an agreement allegedly amongst the parties, defendant denied his presence over the document and the Trial Court directed him to give his specimen of writing and signature in the Court and the Hon’ble Patan High Court in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. In the similar facts of the case of suit for specific performance of contract based upon an agreement allegedly amongst the parties, defendant denied his presence over the document and the Trial Court directed him to give his specimen of writing and signature in the Court and the Hon’ble Patan High Court in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. Amarnath Prasad in 2016(0) Supreme (Pat) 148 has observed that Court is competent enough to pass such kind of order in the background of Section 94(e) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. whereunder Court is empowered to pass such kind of interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient in the interest of justice. 12. In another case i.e. in the case of Thiruvengadam Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal and another reported in (2008) 4 SCC 530 , referring the judgment in the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram (supra), the Court has observed that there is no doubt that the Court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/signature/finger impression, such comparison by the Court without the assistance of any expert, has always be considered to be hazardous and risky and where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the Court should not hazard a guess by a causal perusal. 13. In the case of Smt. Ningamma and another Vs. Chikkaiah and another (supra), the question was whether a person can be compelled by the Court to undergo such a medical test as blood group test or the like against his wish, and to create doubt about the chastity of a woman or create doubt about the man's paternity. Under the circumstances, it was held such medical examination of his or her blood test or the like without his consent or against his wish tantamounts to interference with his fundamental right of life or liberty. The facts of the case quite are different rather than the facts of the present case and therefore, the judgment would be applied to the present case. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 , has observed that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 , has observed that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 15. Keeping in view the above facts, this Court finds that the Trial Court has rightly considered the purpose as well as two documents at Exhs.165 and 176 and dispute of signature/thumb impression raised by the present petitioner, and therefore, it was necessary to get help of the expert for conclusion of the dispute. 16. In the result, present petition is hereby dismissed. The impugned order passed the order passed below Exh.262 dated 24.03.2021 as well as below Exh.263 order dated 19.06.2021 is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged.