IMPORTANT POINT
Expert evidence is not conclusive proof and must be scrutinized by the court; it serves as corroborative evidence that can be challenged but not dismissed without valid reasons.

JUDGMENT :

This Original Petition, has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the prayer herein is to set aside Ext.P7 order and allow Ext.P6 interlocutory application.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the impugned order and relevant materials available.

3. Short facts: A suit for specific performance was filed by the 1st respondent herein as plaintiff, viz. O.S. No. 126/2011 on the files of the Sub Court, Hosdurg. The petitioner herein is the 3rd defendant and respondents 2 and 3 herein are defendants 1 and 2 in the above suit. The petitioner herein/3rd defendant along with other defendants disputed the execution of the sale agreement. In order to ascertain its genuineness, the disputed sale agreement was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur. Accordingly, the Scientific Officer (Documents), Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur filed Ext.P5 report dated 17.03.2018 in support of the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

4. Now the petitioner wants to set aside the report and for which Ext.P6 petition was filed before the trial court. The trial court as per Ext.P7 order dismissed the said petition.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of Ext.P6 petition. In paragraph No. 3 of Ext.P6, it has been averred as under:

3. I say the report of the scientific officer, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory dated 17/03/2018 is not correct. I say the observation of the scientific officer (Documents) Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur that the standard signatures stamped and marked as A1 to A8 and S1 to S 44 also wrote the red enclosed questioned signatures similarly stamped and marked as Q1 and Q9 is incorrect and misleading. I say the signatures marked as Q1 to Q9 is not mine and I have not put the aforesaid signatures. I say the method adopted by the scientific officer is not detailed in the report and the scientific officer ought to have supplied the method adopted for conducting the test for comparison. I say there is a specific method for conducting the test for comparison of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures and the scientific officer has failed to adopt the scientific method for comparing the signatures. I say, the scientific officer (Documents) Regional forensic Science Laboratory had compared my admitted signatures and disputed signature in a lethargic and mechanical way.

6. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that, the petitioner and other defendants disputed the agreement for sale executed on 26.02.2010 in between the plaintiff and defendants, in respect of plaint A and B schedule properties, when suit filed seeking specific performance of the said agreement. As a sequel thereof, the petitioner herein/3rd defendant filed I.A. No.33/2017 for getting expert opinion regarding genuineness of the signatures therein. Accordingly, Ext.P5 report was obtained and the same runs contra to the contentions of the defendants. Now, the petitioner/3rd defendant wants to set aside Ext.P5 expert opinion. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that an opinion evidence is a corroborative piece of evidence and the same cannot be set aside by the court for any reasons, though the expert can be examined in case of dispute regarding the genuineness of the findings, as per law.

7. Now, the question arises for consideration is whether the prayer to set aside an opinion evidence is legally sustainable?

8. As per Section 45 of the Evidence Act, when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant f