not been signed by late Kochamma, if such a contention had been raised by the defendants, then, naturally they are expected to take steps to substantiate that contention. In a suit filed in 2001, the petitioner/plaintiff has taken steps for sending the documents to the forensic expert especially where the document is purported to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, against whom alone relief is sought for in the suit cannot be appreciated. In that view of the matter, I find no interference with the order passed by the learned Sub Judge is called for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I may also state that so far as the evidence to be collected by an expert by comparison of the signatures, it has the value of only opinion evidence as contemplated under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. When the specimen signature card of late Kochamma had already been collected, nothing prevents the court from examining the documents, if at all a dispute is raised as to the signatures appearing in the pronote as having been not executed by the maker of that bond, and form its own conclusion thereof. In
