Rejection of timely handwriting expert application after signature denial violates fair trial principles.

J U D G M E N T

The original petition is challenging Ext.P8 order by which the Munsiff Court, Koyilandy has rejected the application to send the disputed agreement for sale for an expert opinion.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff in a suit for specific performance for an agreement dated 11.08.1993 allegedly executed by late Sri. K.P Gopinath in her favour. While the respondents/defendants delivered the defence there is a specific denial of the execution of the agreement as well as the signature. Later, the petitioner filed an interrogatory requiring the defendants to answer the same. One of the points raised in the interrogatories was the question whether the defendants admit to the signature of late Sri. K.P Gopinath, in the agreement dated 11.08.1993. The defendants delivered the answers to the interrogatories on 04.07.2025 specifically denying the handwriting and signature of late Sri. K.P Gopinath in the alleged agreement dated 11.08.1993. Thus, led to filing of Ext.P6 application requiring the agreement to be sent to a handwriting & signature expert. The said application was rejected by Ext.P8 order stating that it is highly belated.

3. Though the original petition was filed on 14.11.2025, this Court having admitted the same, did not deem it appropriate to stay interim proceedings. Later, it is pointed out that the trial was completed, and that the suit was posted for judgment. Later, on 06.02.2026, this Court interdicted the trial court from delivering the judgment and the interim stay of further proceedings was granted.

4. Heard Smt.Meena A, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.P. Sudheer, the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Smt.Meena A, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the findings of Ext.P8 order that the application is highly belated cannot be sustained. This application was submitted immediately after the defendants delivered their answer to the interrogatories. Yet another reason for rejection of the prayer is that the plaintiff did not explain as to how the application filed by late Sri. K.P Gopinath before the Balussery Panchayat came to her possession. According to the learned Counsel, none of the reasons are sustainable under law. Since the defendants have denied the signature, this is the only method by which the petitioner could prove the signature of late Sri. K.P Gopinath in the agreement. Denial of such opportunity would certainly amount to denial of a fair trial.

6. Per contra, Sri.K.P. Sudheer, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the application itself is belated. The defence in the suit was delivered in the year 2019, and the application Ext.P6 was filed in the year 2025. Thus, there is no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in filing the application at the belated stage. Now after the passing of Ext.P8 order, since the trial of the suit is completed, and the case is posted for judgment, this Court may not interfere with such proceedings at this point of time.

7. I have considered the submissions raised across the Bar, perused the orders rendered by the courts below.

8. The reason for rejecting Ext.P6 application is that the application is belated. It is unfathomable to hold that the application is belated because the defendants were put on notice regarding the requirement to answer the interrogatories in Ext.P4 on 31.05.2025. The defendants answer to the interrogatories were delivered on 04.07.2025 as evidenced by Ext.P5. Ext.P6 was filed on 19.08.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, the findings rendered by the trial court that the application is belated cannot be accepted.

9. That apart when th