SC: Court Cannot Allow Expert Opinion on Handwriting After Trial Concludes

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that an application to obtain an expert opinion on handwriting or signatures under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , cannot be allowed after the trial in a suit has already concluded. A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized that such procedural applications must be timely and serve the interest of justice without delaying the proceedings.

The Court set aside a High Court order that had permitted a defendant to seek expert comparison of signatures at the revisional stage, long after the trial was over.

Case Background

The case, Hussain Bin Awaz vs Mittapally Venkataramulu & Ors. , originated from a suit for declaration and injunction. In such suits, the primary responsibility, or onus, lies on the plaintiff to prove their case. After the trial proceedings had finished, the defendant filed an application in the Trial Court invoking Section 45 (Opinions of experts) and Section 73 (Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . The defendant sought to have certain documents examined by a handwriting expert.

The Trial Court rejected this application, likely due to its belated filing. However, the defendant challenged this decision in the High Court, which, in its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the Trial Court's order and allowed the application for expert examination. The original plaintiff then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Reasoning and Judgment

The Supreme Court critically examined the timing and appropriateness of the defendant's application. The central issue was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Trial Court's decision and allowing the application at such a late stage.

In a concise order, the bench stated, "In our considered view, the High Court has committed an error in reversing the order passed by the Trial Court."

The Court provided two key reasons for its decision:

• Burden of Proof: In a suit for declaration and injunction, the onus is squarely on the plaintiff to establish their claim through evidence. The defendant's attempt to introduce new evidence after the trial's conclusion was deemed inappropriate.
• Prerequisites for Sections 45 & 73: The Court clarified the scope of these provisions, noting, " Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Act, can only be invoked for an admitted document for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting." This suggests a foundational requirement that the document used for comparison must be one whose authenticity is not in dispute.

The judgment strongly indicates that allowing such applications post-trial would open the floodgates for delaying tactics and disrupt the finality of trial proceedings.

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the "impugned judgment passed by the High Court" and restoring the original order of the Trial Court which had disallowed the defendant's application.

While closing the matter on this procedural point, the bench made it clear that "all issues are left open," ensuring that its decision does not prejudice the merits of the main suit, which will be decided based on the evidence already on record. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that procedural remedies related to evidence must be sought at the appropriate stage of the trial and not as an afterthought.