Expert opinions are not binding and must be evaluated alongside other evidence.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Suri, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby the application for handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of defendant No.l (petitioner) and her deceased husband Harish Kumar, has been allowed.

2. Facts in brief are that the defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) sought for handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of defendant No.l and those of her deceased husband Harish Kumar, on the documents Exhibit 16 to P-19, Mark PA and PB from the admitted documents submitted by the plaintiff-respondent-Jai Bhagwan.

3. It was pleaded before the trial Court that the plaintiff-respondents submitted forged documents, Mark PA and PB and Exhibit P-16 to P-19, which the petitioner and her husband had never executed and the signatures thereon can be compared with the admitted documents. It was further pleaded that plaintiff-respondents prepared forged documents on behalf of the petitioner and her husband deceased Harish Kumar. They never executed the application and affidavit dated 18.04.2007 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

4. On notice, the said application was opposed on the ground that the documents which the defendant wants to get compared by the handwriting expert have already been compared and the handwriting expert appeared as plaintiff witness and has deposed as PW-4. The petitioner had cross-examined the said witness along with another handwriting expert and in view of the same, the application for handwriting expert was not maintainable as such. Thus, it is liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court after considering all the facts and circumstances and the provisions of Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, was of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to any party if necessary permission to the plaintiff will be given to inspect the Court file and take photographs of the signatures of the same with the signatures available on documents of judicial file, as mentioned in the amended application. It was also ordered that both the parties will be given equal opportunity to prove and to controvert the case of each other. Admissibility of the evidence was to be adjudicated after leading of evidence by both the parties and the photographs were to be taken in the Court, in the presence of the opposite party.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the defendant-respondent should not have been permitted for handwriting expert, as the plaintiff has already examined a handwriting expert in his evidence.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance perused the pleadings and other material placed on file.

8. The application moved earlier by the plaintiff-petitioner for handwriting expert was allowed vide order dated 02.07.2022 (Annexure P-7). In the said order, it was specifically recorded that both the parties will be given equal opportunity to prove and to controvert the case of each other. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any provision of law, which would bar the defendant from bringing on record the evidence or opinion of a handwriting expert, if the same has already been done by the other side. In other words, the petitioner cannot seek an order restraining the defendant from bringing on record its evidence to prove its pleaded case or to controvert the case set up by the other side.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is in continuity with the previous order dated 02.07.2022 (Annexure P-7), wherein while allowing the application moved by the plaintiff-respondent, it was categorically held that both the parties will be given equal opportunity to prove and to controvert the case of each other. Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, read as under:

'45. Opinions of experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity