Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
SHAHIDA – Appellant
Versus
MANSOOR – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2972 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JASNEED JAMAL, SRI.P.SAMSUDIN, SMT.LIRA A.B., SHRI.ANAS RAHMAN C.P., SMT.DEVIKA E.D.
For the Respondents: SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SRI.M.ANUROOP, SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY, SMT.FATHIMA NASREEN S.

Timeliness and procedural adherence govern entitlement to expert evidence in contract disputes, contingent on authenticated signatures.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: In this judgment, the court addresses the procedural appropriateness of expert evidence in contract performance cases, referring to the need for authenticated signatures. Facts of the Case: The petitioner challenges an order denying late application for signature verification in a contract performance suit filed in 2018.

Findings of Court:
The court finds the application belated and reasons sound yet allows the petitioner to produce authenticated documents within set time.

Issues: The primary issues addressed include timeliness of expert application concerning signed agreements and rights to present evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserts permissions for expert evidence depend on the presence of authenticated signatures, emphasizing procedural fairness.

Result: The original petition is disposed of directing further application for expert evidence under strict conditions.

Judgement Key Points

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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 the petitioner can be given an opportunity to adduce an expert evidence. However, such an application can only be allowed, if there are any admitted signatures of the relevant period in question. The application as such cannot be allowed.

The original petition is hence disposed of directing the petitioner to file an application with authenticated documents which bear the admitted signatures of the 2^nd defendant during the period of the agreement, within two weeks from today. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and ordered in accordance with law. The delay shall not be a reason for rejecting the application. The trial shall proceed thereafter. Since this order is passed in exercise of discretionary power, the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the counsel appearing for the respondents before the High Court, within two weeks and submit a memo to that effect before the Court below.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMT.R.RAVI, JSHAHIDA – AppellantVersusMANSOOR – RespondentOP(C) NO. 2972 OF 2025

Timeliness and procedural adherence govern entitlement to expert evidence in contract disputes, contingent on authenticated signatures.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
SHAHIDA – Appellant
Versus
MANSOOR – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2972 OF 2025