Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT
Mohd Rafi – Appellant
Versus
Zahid Husain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of tenancy disputes and suit for eviction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. expert signature comparison essential on denial. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. courts properly assessed necessity of expert opinion. (Para 5) |
| 4. o26 r10a discretionary; art 227 limited to perversity. (Para 6) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar, District Nainital in Civil Suit No.06 of 2022, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking comparison of signatures and thumb impressions through a scientific expert, came to be rejected. The petitioners have further assailed the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Civil Revision No.06 of 2025, affirming the order of the trial court. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is thus invoked on the plea that the courts below have acted illegally and with material i
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 repeated failure to avail opportunities granted by the court to lead evidence can amount to an abuse of process of law and delay the final adjudication of a suit.
The allowance of pre-trial applications to send disputed documents for Expert opinion is improper and constitutes a material irregularity.
The court reaffirmed that expert evidence, particularly in handwriting cases, should be approached with caution and is not conclusive without corroboration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow or reject belated applications under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lies with the Court, and no hard and fast rule....
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
