Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Yogesh Kumhar – Appellant
Versus
Pappu Lal – Respondent
ORDER
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (for brevity, 'the learned trial Court') in Case no.23/2015 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant (for brevity, 'the defendant') under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1872') has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, 'the plaintiff') under Section 37 CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,61,860/-, on an application filed by the defendant, he was granted leave to defend. During the course of his evidence, the defendant moved an application under Section 45 of the Act of 1872 praying therein that the disputed promissory note be subjected to examination by the handwriting expert as it bears his forged signature in Hindi whereas, he always puts his signature in English. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2021, impugned herein.
3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendant submits that in view of dispute raised by him with regard to the forgery of his signature on the promissory note, it
The opinion of a handwriting expert is not binding on the court, and inconsistencies in signature usage can undermine claims of forgery.
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 absence of contemporaneous admitted signatures renders a request for handwriting analysis of disputed signatures unjustified, emphasizing the burden of proof on the petitioner.
The discretion of the court to seek expert opinion on disputed signatures is upheld, regardless of time gaps between signatures on different documents.
A party seeking to send a document for expert comparison must provide authentic documents containing admitted signatures; failure to do so results in dismissal of the application.
Expert opinion – Power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case – Courts can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists re....
Negotiable instruments – Expert opinion for signature - whether the signature appearing on Ex.D.1 is that of the complainant or not. Under such circumstances, it is essential that the best and the co....
The court has the discretion to seek expert opinion on the comparison of disputed and admitted signatures under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and there is no fixed time limit for filin....
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
