Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Sabari Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Dhiren Kumar Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. requirement for expertise in handwriting matters. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The defendant in a money suit has preferred the present revisional application against an order whereby the petitioner’s application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of theCode of Civil Procedure , seeking the appointment of a handwriting expert to compare the handwriting of the husband of the petitioner in Exhibit-1, a purported challan, with another document which was produced by the plaintiff/opposite party himself and was admittedly executed by the husband of the petitioner, was refused.
3. It is contended that the report of the handwriting expert, if obtained, shall be the best piece of evidence to ascertain the dispute as to whether the purported challan bearing Exhibit-1 was written by someone else than the husband of the petitioner or it was actually written by the husband of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana , reported at AIR 1961 SC 1655 in support of his proposition.
7. However, the appointment of expert was rightly turned down by the learned Trial Judge.
9. Thus, the germane consideration on the plinth of the defence
The court established that the refusal to appoint a handwriting expert constitutes a jurisdictional error as expert evidence is essential for determining the authenticity of documents in a money suit....
A party's right to a fair trial includes the ability to challenge evidence through proper legal procedures, particularly concerning disputed signatures in cheque dishonour cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of hand writing expert opinion in challenging the authenticity and genuineness of a document, as provided under Order XXVI Rule 10A ....
The court has the authority to compare signatures without expert opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expert opinions on identity of handwriting and the comparison of signatures, as provided under Section 45 and Section 73 of the I....
A belated application for handwriting expertise does not constitute fresh evidence and may disrupt the integrity of court proceedings.
The allowance of pre-trial applications to send disputed documents for Expert opinion is improper and constitutes a material irregularity.
The handwriting expert's opinion is not a perfect conclusive evidence, and filing such an application at a belated stage may lead to multiplying the proceedings without substantial need.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
