respondent for sending the same to the hand-writing expert for comparison of the admitted hand-writing of the respondent with the disputed handwriting. The trial court had allowed the application and had directed the respondent to give the specimen hand-writing. The specimen handwriting was tendered in the court. Merely because there was delay on the part of the petitioner to seek the appointment of the hand-writing expert immediately after the specimen handwriting was tendered by the respondent in the court, the trial court could not have rejected the application for appointment of a hand-writing expert, specially when the communication could throw considerable light on the controversy involved in the case. The trial court was not justified in observing in the impugned order that the opinion of the hand-writing expert could not have thrown any light on the controversy involved. The communications, if proved, would constitute a material piece of evidence in favour of the petitioner and hence the trial court could not have rejected the application on the ground that it was belatedly filed and also on the ground that the opinion of the handwriting expert was not relevant. In my view, the opinion of the hand-writing expert would be relevant for deciding the issue involved as it would throw some light on the controversy. If the opinion of the hand-writing expert is necessary, the application could not have been rejected on the ground of delay.
