JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) -VI Ranchi in Original Suit No.193 of 2017 whereby the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court. 3. Mr. Yogendra Prasad the learned counsel for the petitioner /plaintiff submits that the Original Suit(Partition) No.193 of 2017 was instituted with respect of Khata Nos.98 and 99 of Village Upper Konki, Thana No.21, PS and District Ranchi, Khata No.166 Khesra Nos.42 and 44 of Village Sutiyamby, Thana No.8, PS Pithoria, District Ranchi and Khata No.294 of Village Pithoria, Thana No.9, PS Pithoria, District Ranchi stands recorded in the name of Khaintu Sonar and others and prayer was made for preliminary decree for partition of 1/6 share of the plaintiff and defendant no.16 jointly passed in respect of the said land prescribed in the schedule of the plaint. He submits that the summon has been issued by the learned trial court and the defendants have filed their respective written statement and also adduced their evidence. The defendant (DW2) namely Munni Devi who is the Mukhia of Gram Panchayat Pithoria has stated in her cross examination on seeing the Exhibit-2 that her signature is there in the genealogical table. He submits that defendants’ genealogical table issued by the Mukhia has been accepted by her to the tune that her signature is there. However, the same genealogical table has been issued by the said Mukhia herself so far the plaintiff is concerned and that has been not accepted and in view of that the petition has been filed to sent the signature of the said Mukhia for verification. However, the learned court has erroneously rejected the same. He submits that in view of the provision made in Indian Evidence Act the learned court has erred in passing the said order and he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K.Raja v. John Daniel and Others in CRP (PD) No.2302 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered and as such, the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered and as such, the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. In this background, the learned court has passed the order dated 13.01.2025 after hearing both the sides and has found that from the record the plaintiff and defendant both submitted separate genealogy and D.W.2 admitted the genealogy of the defendants and denied of giving any genealogy certificate to the plaintiff. She also denied signature over the document and the learned court has found that in the present suit the genealogy is to be verified from the pleadings as well as the evidences of the parties and further found that the moot question is as to whether the plaintiff has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt about the genealogy pleaded or produced by him or not? The plaintiff has adduced the evidence in detail and the evidence has already been closed and the learned court found that beyond the pleadings nobody can be allowed to go and in view of that the learned court has come to the conclusion that there is no requirement of sending the same for verification of the signature of the DW-2 (Mukhia). 5. Admittedly, when there is no comparable signature stood as tendered and the materials on record before the learned trial court it is unsafe to send the same for verification to the Handwriting Expert. A reference may be made to the case of Byalla Devadas v. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao reported in 2022 LiveLaw (A) 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). 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 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. 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." 6. In view of above and considering that the facts of the present case what has been emerged that the learned court has given a cogent reason of not sending the said signature for opinion of the Handwriting Expert in absence of any comparable signature and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order, and hence, C.M.P. No.225 of 2025 is dismissed. 7. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.