As per case facts, the revision-petitioner/defendant denied borrowing money or executing a promissory note, claiming his signatures were forged. After both parties presented evidence, the defendant filed an application under ... Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the promissory note for handwriting expert comparison, but did not file any contemporary admitted signatures. The question arose whether the rejection of the petitioner's application to send the promissory note for expert comparison of signatures was justified, especially considering the belated filing and the lack of comparable admitted signatures. Finally, the Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Trial Court's decision. It ruled that no fixed time limit exists for such applications, but courts have discretion, which was appropriately exercised given the five-year delay. Crucially, it reaffirmed that signatures on a vakalat or written statement cannot be considered reliable or comparable standards for expert opinion, as they might be disguised, rendering such comparison unsafe and unhelpful for a conclusive judgment.