JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1. 2. The Notice upon the opposite party No.3 is found to be validly served and the notice upon opposite party Nos.9 and 12 have been served through family members which is recorded in the order dated 22.11.2024. 3. Opposite Party Nos.9 to 16 are found to be proforma opposite parties and in view of that the notice upon them have been dispensed with by order dated 22.11.2024. 4. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by learned Sub-Judge (Sr. Division) – VIII, Deoghar in Original Suit No.129 of 2013 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 27.09.2023 filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the signature of Gajadhar Rout and Shailja Nand Prasad. 5. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit which was instituted being Original Suit No.129 of 2013 for a decree of declaration that the un-registered document dated 15.06.1975 and the registered deed of sale No.429 of 2013 is illegal, void, forged and fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs and the cost of the suit was also prayed. He submits that on notice the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement and the suit is pending for evidence of the defendants after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence. He submits that on 27.09.2023, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed and admitted documents to the handwriting expert for examination of signature made upon the aforesaid documents contained in Annexure-1. He submits that the rejoinder to that was filed by the defendants and the learned Court has decided the same by order dated 24.02.2024 and pleased to dismiss the same. He submits that the signature on the Parwarik Vaywastha Patra is disputed and in view of that the said petition has been filed for comparing of the signature and the learned Court has wrongly rejected the same. He submits that the signature on the Parwarik Vaywastha Patra is disputed and in view of that the said petition has been filed for comparing of the signature and the learned Court has wrongly rejected the same. He submits that three documents have been relied in the nature of certified copy of the sale deed for the year 1943, xerox copy of the sale deed for the year 1943 and certified copy of Title Execution Case No.10 of 2005 along with rejoinder petition, time petition and vakalatnama have been relied upon that verification and the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order. He submits that in view of Section 45, the learned Court was expected to allow the said petition. 6. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.2 and 4 to 8 opposes the prayer and submits that the learned Court has rightly rejected the said petition considering that the contemporaneous signature and admitted signature obtained subsequent to date of disputed signature has not been brought on record and the learned Court has further rightly held that in the course of time the signature of any person can change and for Parwarik Vaywastha Patra of the year 1975 the reliance has been placed on the signature of 1943. He submits in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. 7. Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 adopted the argument of Mr. Prashant Pallav. 8. It is an admitted position that Original Suit No.129 of 2013 has been instituted for decree of declaration that un-registered document dated 15.06.1975 and the registered deed of Sale No.429 of 2013 is illegal, void, forged and fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit the said petition has been filed and the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the same considering that the disputed signature can be compared with admitted signature which were contemporaneous and not to the admitted signature obtained subsequent to the date of disputed signature. If the signature of contemporaneous is not brought on record the learned Court has rightly passed the said order. 9. It has been pointed out in the course of the argument by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that now the matter is fixed for argument before the learned Court. If the signature of contemporaneous is not brought on record the learned Court has rightly passed the said order. 9. It has been pointed out in the course of the argument by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that now the matter is fixed for argument before the learned Court. The petitioners have relied upon the three documents for signature verification being certified copy of the sale deed for the year 1943, xerox copy of the sale deed for the year 1943 and certified copy of Title Execution Case No.10 of 2005 along with rejoinder petition, time petition and vakalatnama. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Byalla Devadas versus Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53 wherein at paragraph No.9, it has been held as under :- 9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the orders passed by a learned Judge in P. Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao AIR 2016 AP 118 (FB) the case of Dara Srinivasa Rao's case (referred (2) supra). In P.Padmanabhaiah's case (referred (4) supra), the defendant in O.S.No.324 of 2010 on the file of Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the vakalat and written statement containing his signatures along with the promissory note (Ex.A.1) for handwriting expert for comparison of his signatures on the vakalat and written statement with the signatures said to be of him on 4 AIR 2016 AP 118 (FB) NJS, J Crp_67_ 2022 Ex.A.1 and furnish a report with opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures on the said exhibits. The said application was allowed. The said application was allowed. The learned Judge of this Court while interfering with the orders of the Trial Court had extensively dealt with the matters with reference to comparison of signatures on vakalat and written statement with the disputed documents, inter alia, held as follows:- "In the well-considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. .........There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. .........There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert’s opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence." 10. Admittedly, on a signature of 1943 on the basis of plaint rejoinder and the vakalatnama of 2005 that too of photocopy and certified copy the said has been sought to be examined on behalf of the petitioners and by way of mechanical process does not show the accuracy on the ground of signature, defected photocopy, therefore, such comparison is impermissible under law and there is every possibility of change of signature due to passage of time and there is every possibility to sign on the document in disguise so as to obtain a favourable opinion from handwriting expert. What is required as per law is that any authentic contemporaneous document containing signature of the parties to be reflected along with disputed signature for comparison. 11. Section 45 of the Evidence Act enable the Court to obtain the opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the one relating to the comparison of disputed signatures. Further an expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. Further, there can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, if only another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. These analysis would become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature: and the signature mark: on a xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis. 12. Further, there can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, if only another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. These analysis would become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature: and the signature mark: on a xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis. 12. For the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such this petition is dismissed.