A Court should not solely rely on its own visual comparison to authenticate disputed signatures when they form the material core of a case; instead, it should exercise discretion to appoint a handwriting expert to ensure a just and scientifically accurate determination of the document's execution.

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Second District Judge, Korba, in Civil Suit No.A(DJ)/7/2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 39 and 40 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Order 16 Rule 2(2) CPC has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the plaintiff before trial court. He is prosecuting a civil suit for specific performance of contract dated 30.10.2021. It is pleaded in the plaint that with respect to land bearing Khasra No.500 Area 7 dismil, out of total 10 dismil, was agreed to be sold in favour of plaintiff by the defendants for a total consideration of Rs.26,25,000/- and an agreement was executed on 30.10.2021. Out of total sale consideration, an amount of Rs.10,10,000/- on 30.10.2021, Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.2021 and Rs.20,000/- on 01.11.2021 have been paid to them. Thus, total Rs.10,40,000/-have been paid to the defendants. Despite repeated request when the defendants did not execute the sale deed in his favour and not performed their part of contract, he served a legal notice to the defendants and then he filed the civil suit on 23.11.2022. The defendants, after service of summons upon them, made appearance and filed their written statement. In their written statement though they have not specifically denied execution of agreement dated 30.10.2021, but have pleaded that no advance amount was paid as shown in the agreement and only an assurance was given to the defendants that plaintiff will pay the advance amount. In their written statement they have also pleaded that since the plaintiff has not paid any amount to them, they are not bound to execute the sale deed in his favour. The agreement got executed by the plaintiff by playing fraud which is not acceptable and therefore they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. During pendency of suit, based on the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and the trial court proceeded for recording evidence of the party. After examination of plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant No.2 Visheshar examined himself as DW-1 before the trial court. In his cross examination, he denied the execution of agreement and also denied his signature over the said agreement Ex.P/1. He also denied his signature in every pages of the agreement Ex.P/1.

4. Considering the evidence given by defendant No.1 that the defendants, in written statement, though have not specifically denied execution of agreement and their signature, but in the evidence of defendant No.2 he specifically denied execution of agreement and signature over the agreement Ex.P/1, the plaintiff filed an application under Sections 39 & 40 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam read with Order 16 Rule 2(2) CPC before the trial court on 04.08.2025 for examining the signature of defendant over the agreement Ex.P/1 by handwriting expert. The said application of plaintiff has been rejected by the trial court on 18.08.2025 on the ground that in the written statement, the defendants have admitted execution of agreement and therefore there is no need to get the agreement again examined by handwriting expert. The said order dated 18.08.2025 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although in the written statement the defendants have not specifically denied about execution of agreement and their signature, however, in the cross examination o