Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Shijo Antony – Appellant
Versus
C. C. Joy – Respondent
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 court ruled that applications for expert opinion on disputed signatures should be made at an appropriate stage in the trial, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need for proper evidence befor....
Expert opinions are not conclusive and must be supported by substantive evidence; courts have discretion in allowing further expert evaluations.
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
