No. 4/22.03.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

This is a revisional application challenging order dated 28.01.2010.  The only contention against the impugned order is that the Forum below acted wrongly in refusing assistance of handwriting expert holding that “Court is the expert of all experts”.  The other reason is apprehension that handwriting expert’s opinion is a long drawn process.  We are not satisfied with either of said findings.  It is not the finding of the Forum that either the concerned document is not relevant or that there is no material to conclude on the question of handwriting.  This proceeding before the Forum being a summary proceeding by the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act where neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor Evidence Act applies.  On behalf of the O.Ps reliance was placed on the case of Dr. Narayan Mukherjee – vs. – Krishna Dey (Mukherjee) reported in (1996) 3 ICC 319 decided by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.  In the said case Court’s power to compare handwriting was recognized in view of Section 73 of the Evidence Act.  The Forum has not been treated by the Legislature as expert of experts.

Considering the aforesaid aspect we are of the opinion in case of such summary proceeding when a handwriting is disputed, to take opinion of handwriting expert is desirable.  The caution noted is noticeable in various judgements referred to in the aforesaid case of Dr. Narayan Mukherjee (Supra) against comparison of handwriting by Court as a general principle.  Therefore, revision petition is allowed.  The impugned order is set aside.  The Forum below is directed to pass appropriate order in respect of the application for appointment of expert and if it is felt appropriate direction may be given for expeditious submission of report.  No order as to cost.