Item- A-257. sg 08-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 1874 of 2026 Debasish Adak Versus Taraknath Bera & Ors. Mr. Arun Kumar Das Ms. Mahua Palit …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no.1 and is directed against an order being No. 76 dated 4th December, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Other Suit NO. 144 of 2015. By the order impugned, the application filed by the petitioner for comparison of the disputed signature of the defendants as appearing in bilateral agreement dated 12th August, 2009 was sought to be compared with the signature of the defendant as appearing in the original rent receipts, was rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the original rent receipt containing the signature of the defendant was produced, the learned trial judge rejected the prayer for comparison of the same with that of the disputed signature appearing in the bilateral agreement. Section 73 of the Evidence Act states that in order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, 2 although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. Thus, any signature cannot be the basis for comparison unless the same is admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person. The learned trial judge recorded that the signature is neither proved as per the provision of Evidence Act nor is admitted the signature. The learned trial judge applied the correct legal tests while rejecting the prayer for sending the rent receipt to hand writing expert for comparison of the signature in the questioned document being the bilateral agreement. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any infirmity in the matter warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This civil revisional application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)