Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Parveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Uday Parkash – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The present petition is directed against the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan (learned Trial Court), vide which the application filed by the petitioner (applicant/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) for comparison of the signatures of respondent No.1 (original defendant No.1) was dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a civil suit is pending before the learned Trial Court for specific performance of the Agreement dated 16.02.1987 entered between Maharani Durga Devi and Smt. Nalini Devi through their General Power of Attorney-defendant No.1. The matter was listed for the evidence when the applicant/plaintiff filed an application under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the signatures of defendant No.1 to the handwriting expert for comparison. It was asserted that defendant No.1 had received
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 allowance of pre-trial applications to send disputed documents for Expert opinion is improper and constitutes a material irregularity.
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....
The court emphasized the necessity of expert analysis in signature comparisons, asserting that judicial evaluation without expert assistance is imprudent, particularly in will disputes.
The validity of handwriting expert opinions in signature verification hinges on the availability of reliable, contemporaneous signatures from the defendants for comparison.
The court ruled that expert testimony on handwriting is essential in disputed signature cases, especially when coercion is claimed.
The court has the authority to compare signatures without expert opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
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
