Back
SAMEER JAIN
Jai Narayan – Appellant
Versus
Moolchand – Respondent
ORDER
1. The present writ petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 in Civil Case No. 244/02 whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, to compare and examine the signature of DW-4 Roshan Lal on Exhibit-1 with his admitted signature, under Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error by wrongly considering the provisions of the law in respect of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and by not appreciating the true spirit of the legislature behind the said section - since the documents required to be compared and examined by an expert for proving the case and to establish the true facts - has caused great prejudice to the petitioner-plaintiff. Learned counsel contends that such examination was necessarily required to be conducted in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned speaking order after due consideration of the facts and material on record, which must be allowed to rest. Learned counsel further submits that the application was filed b
The plaintiff must provide direct evidence to prove the execution of an agreement, and signature comparison is a supplementary method only when direct evidence is unavailable.
The Court's discretion in rejecting an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is based on judicious discretion and does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Consti....
The opinion of a handwriting expert is not binding on the court, and inconsistencies in signature usage can undermine claims of forgery.
The court reaffirmed that expert evidence, particularly in handwriting cases, should be approached with caution and is not conclusive without corroboration.
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.
Expert opinion applications under the Indian Evidence Act can be filed at any stage, and the trial court should not assess document merits before completing the trial.
The allowance of pre-trial applications to send disputed documents for Expert opinion is improper and constitutes a material irregularity.
The court ruled that additional evidence at the appellate stage is only permitted under exceptional circumstances, emphasizing diligence in trial procedures.
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
