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.

ORDER :

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by impugned order dated 25.02.2022 passed by First Additional District Judge, Khargone, in RCA No.48/2019, whereby the application under Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for getting an opinion of handwriting expert has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff herein has filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession, damages and mesne profits in respect of a land admeasuring 03 acres which as per the alleged family arrangement dated 15.05.1996, Smt. Rampyaribai had declared to give to anyone who served her during her lifetime and the suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2019. Thereafter the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC before the first appellate Court on numerous grounds. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner/appellant has filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, read with Section 151 of CPC for obtaining an opinion of handwriting expert in respect of signature of Rampyaribai on document, Ex-D/1 which was a letter written by Rampyaribai. After hearing both the parties, the first appellate Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant/petitioner, therefore this petition has been filed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that merely seeking opinion of an handwriting expert on a document which has already been exhibited will not count as a fresh evidence. It is the duty of the learned appellate Court to see to it that substantial injustice should not have been caused merely on the ground of a procedural lapse on part of the petitioner. He submits that the learned lower appellate Court failed to appreciate that the appellant/petitioner is not filling any lacunae in the evidence at the appellate stage by seeking a report of handwriting expert. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajiv Lochan Pandey vs. Madan Lochan Sharma reported in AIR 1989 Allahabad 45. Hence he prays that the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 be set-aside.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner/appellant at length and perused the documents filed by him.

6. It appears that the respondent No.1 has filed the civil suit in the year 2017 and after decree of the civil suit, the petitioner/appellant has filed an application under Section 45 of Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC at belated stage. Admittedly, the evidence of both the parties have been concluded before the trial Court. The petitioner/appellant did not assigned any valid or good reason for filing such an application so belatedly before the trial Court. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the handwriting expert's opinion is not a perfect conclusive evidence and it is just an expert's opinion. Plaintiff had not filed such application under section 45 of Evidence Act for getting an opinion of handwriting expert in respect of obtaining signature of Late Rampyaribai, Ex.-D/1 at the early stage of civil suit. Even after completion of evidence of both the parties, the petitioner/appellant did not file any application before the trial Court till the final judgment and if such opportunity is given to the plaintiff, definitely matter should be reopen and against the opinion of handwriting expert which will give room to afford an opportunity to other side to give fresh evidence for further rebuttal. There is no need for multiplying the proceedings in the manner sought for. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, in the case of Vijayant and Another vs. Smt. Attar Kaur vide judgment dated 28.05.2013 in Civil Revision No.3450 of 2013 has held as under :

"If the plaintiff must be given an opportunity t