Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
SHAHIDA – Appellant
Versus
MANSOOR – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case concerns a dispute over signature verification in a contract performance suit filed in 2018, involving the second defendant challenging the authenticity of signatures on an agreement dated 30.10.2017 (!) .
The court emphasized that the timeliness of applications for expert evidence is crucial, and such applications are generally considered belated if filed after the completion of evidence, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated (!) .
The court acknowledged that while the initial application to send the agreement for signature verification was belated, the petitioner could be given an opportunity to produce expert evidence if they submit authenticated documents bearing admitted signatures from the relevant period (!) (!) .
The court disposed of the original petition, directing the petitioner to file a proper application with authenticated documents within two weeks. The court clarified that the application should include documents with signatures that are admitted or acknowledged by the parties during the relevant period (!) .
The court also ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents' counsel within two weeks and to submit proof of such payment to the Court below (!) .
The decision underscores that permissions for expert evidence depend on the presence of authenticated signatures and that procedural fairness requires strict adherence to timelines and proper documentation [judgement_subject].
Let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Ext.P5 order whereby an application seeking permission to send the disputed agreement to an expert for verification of the signature is challenged in this original petition. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant. The suit is one for specific performance of a contract for sale as per an agreement dated 30.10.2017. The suit was filed in 2018. A written statement was filed by the defendants 1 and 2, in which a specific contention is taken that the 2nd defendant had not signed in the agreement. However, no steps were taken for verification of the signature by an expert when the case was listed for pre-trial steps. It is only after the evidence of the plaintiff was over, that an application has filed. The Court found that the application was belated and that it will not be proper to allow the petition since the signatures sought to be compared were the signatures in the vakalath and in the written statement and not any authenticated document. The Court also finds that hardship will be caused, if such an application is allowed. There is nothing legally wrong in the reasoning in Ext.P5. However, since a contention has been taken in the written statement, I am of the opinion that t
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
