JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Correctness or otherwise of the order dated 24.01.2020, passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, in Title Suit No. 36/2017 (Sri. Priyanath Mandal vs. Smt. Ashalata Sarkar and Others) and the order dated 24.01.2020, passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, in Title Suit No. 37/2017 (Sri. Animesh Biswas and Another vs. Smt. Ashalata Sarkar and Others) are challenged in these 2 (two) Civil Revision Petitions preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners, namely Sri. Priyanath Mandal, Sri. Animesh Biswas and Smt. Anima Biswas, as common question is involved in both the petitions. 2. It is submitted at the Bar that both the petitions may be heard and disposed of at this admission stage itself by passing a common judgment and order. And accordingly, it is decided to dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment and order. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petitions are briefly stated as under: “Respondents/defendants, Smt. Ashalata Sarkar, Sri. Manabendra Sarkar and Sri. Pranabendra Sarkar, entered into an agreement, dated 20.03.2017, for selling a plot of land to one Sri. Chandra Mohan Mandal, proforma defendant in Title Suit No. 36/2017. While during subsistence of the agreement and before obtaining the sale permission, the parties entered into a mutual agreement, whereby, the respondents agreed to transfer a portion of land measuring 2 Katha 10 Lechas, in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, Shri Priyanath Mandal and pursuant to such mutual oral agreement and after payment of part of the consideration amount, the respondents have applied for sale permission in respect of the aforesaid 2 Katha 10 Lechas of land in favour of the plaintiff. But, the respondents, later on, refused to complete the sale process and then the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 36/2017 for specific performance of the contract. The respondents entered appearances and contested the Suit and denied their signatures on the sale permission form and in the affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for seeking opinion of expert regarding similarity of signatures of the respondents and the signatures found in the sale permission application form and affidavit, vide Petition No. 1427/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for seeking opinion of expert regarding similarity of signatures of the respondents and the signatures found in the sale permission application form and affidavit, vide Petition No. 1427/2019. Thereafter, the respondents had submitted objection to the said petition and then the learned Court below, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petition, vide impugned order dated 24.01.2020, on the ground that no original copies of the application form along with affidavit (Exhibit-7), dated 30.03.2017, are available on the record and the photostate copies of the said documents are not sufficient to enable the expert for determination of the genuineness of the signatures. Besides, the learned Court below held that the agreement for sale, dated 20.03.2017, which the plaintiff has sought specific performance, was not executed between the defendants and the plaintiff, rather it was executed between the defendants and pro-forma defendant and there is no specific plea as to the execution of any agreement either orally or written on the basis of which the defendants allegedly signed the permission forms for selling 2 Katha 10 Lechas of land and that in order to claim specific performance of contract, there must be a valid agreement between the parties and it is not necessary that the agreement must be written, but it must be stated that there was an oral agreement between the 2 (two) parties competent to enter into contract for lawful consideration. Whereas, there is no mention of any such execution of any agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendants and the sale permission forms are not agreement for sale and are merely certain formalities required for transferring a plot of land. The execution or non-execution of the sale permission forms is not a decisive factor for proper disposal of the Suit and therefore, the learned Court below rejected the petition. Then, being highly aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court for setting aside the impugned order on the grounds: (i) That, the learned Court below traversed its jurisdiction while observing that there was no agreement between the parties and the execution of sale permission form is not a decisive factor for proper disposal of the Suit. (ii) That, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the principle behind Section 45 of the Evidence Act, which clearly empowers the Court to call for expert opinion. (ii) That, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the principle behind Section 45 of the Evidence Act, which clearly empowers the Court to call for expert opinion. (iii) That, though the original documents were not on record, but compared copies with the originals were available and the Court has the power to call for the original one and, therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.01.2020.” 4. I have heard the learned Advocates of both sides. 5. Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned Court below has committed manifest illegality by rejecting the prayer of the petitioners and that Section 45 of the Evidence Act empowers the Court to call for the original record, though the same was not available on the record, and that the petitioners have examined the ADC to prove the sale permission forms and the affidavits and as such, sending of the admitted signatures of the respondents for examination by the expert is very much necessary and, therefore, it is contended to allow the petitions. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioners are trying to enforce a contract which they are not a party and that the entire Title Suit are based on falsehood and they never put their signature in the sale permission forms and the affidavits and the petitioners are trying to fill up the lacunae and that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer and, therefore, it is contended to uphold the same. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petitions and the grounds mentioned therein and also perused the documents placed on record and the impugned order of the learned Court below, dated 24.01.2020. 8. It is not in dispute that the original sale permission forms and the affidavits, dated 30.03.2017 (Exhibit-7), which the petitioners sought to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Petition No. 1427/2019, under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, were not available on the record. 9. Section 45 of the Evidence Act relates to opinion of expert. 8. It is not in dispute that the original sale permission forms and the affidavits, dated 30.03.2017 (Exhibit-7), which the petitioners sought to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Petition No. 1427/2019, under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, were not available on the record. 9. Section 45 of the Evidence Act relates to opinion of expert. It provides 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. Such persons are called experts. 10. In the case in hand, the respondents have denied their signatures in the Exhibit-7 and, therefore, the petitioners approached the learned Court below by filing a petition for sending their signatures to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. But, neither the original forms and the affidavits (Exhibit-7) were available on record nor the same were submitted by any of the parties before the Court below. What was available before the Court were the photostate copies of the said documents, which, according to the learned Court below, is not sufficient to enable the expert for determination of the genuineness of its signatures that have been allegedly put therein by the respondents. The reasons, so assigned by the learned Court below, for denying the prayer of the petitioner, thus, to the considered opinion of this Court, seems to be not at all unreasonable. Needless to say that opinion expressed by an expert is not conclusive on the matter covered by it. It is for the court to form its own conclusion on the evidence. Expert opinion must be supported by reason and it the reason which is important in assessing the merit of the opinion. 11. To obtain an opinion of hand writing expert upon any disputed document, the original copy of the same is very much necessary. Because, the same needs deeper examination so as to compare with the admitted hand writing of the person concerned and thereafter to arrived at a definite finding. In the case in hand the original copy of the documents were not made available before the learned Court below. Because, the same needs deeper examination so as to compare with the admitted hand writing of the person concerned and thereafter to arrived at a definite finding. In the case in hand the original copy of the documents were not made available before the learned Court below. No prayer is also made to the learned court below to call for the original copy. And therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order, dated 24.01.2020, passed by the learned court below suffers from any illegality or impropriety requiring interference of this Court. However, while declining the prayer, the learned Court below also made some observations, touching the merit of the case, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is totally uncalled for at that stage. 12. In the result, I find no merit in these petitions and accordingly, both the petitions stand dismissed. The parties have to bear their own cost.