Expert opinions based on photocopies are inadmissible as they lack reliability and cannot be the sole basis for conclusions.

ORDER

This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners/defendants challenging the order dtd. 07.08.2023 passed by 1^st Civil Judge Junior Division, Satna in RCS No.42A/2014 whereby in the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction, trial Court has dismissed petitioners/defendants’ application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2. In a suit for permanent injunction, the respondents/plaintiffs have prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants claiming themselves to be in possession of shop no. 5 & 6 of Keerti Bazar, Semariya Chowk, Satna and in turn the petitioners/defendants by filing separate written statements claimed themselves to be in possession of shop no. 5,6,7 and 8 of Keerti Bazar, Semariya Chowk, Satna on the premise of Memorandam of Understanding (in short “the MOU”) dtd. 28.04.1995 (Annexure P/4).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the matter came before this Court and finding the MOU dtd. 28.04.1995 (Annexure P/4) to be a relevant and necessary document, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 24.02.2021 passed in W.P. No.11848/2017, permitted the petitioners to lead secondary evidence in respect of the MOU, which has already been marked as Ex.D/1 but when by confronting the said document, a question was asked to the plaintiff 1, he denied from his signature on it. He submits that as the MOU is a main document of defence of the defendants and as the plaintiff 1 has denied his signature on it, therefore, the same deserves to be examined by handwriting expert and trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application on the sole ground of it to be a photocopy. Placing reliance on the decisions of coordinate benches of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dharam Singh vs. Labh Singh and others, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3587; and Jasbir Singh vs. Charanjit Singh and others in C.R. No. 2047-2018 (O&M) decided on 08.08.2022, learned counsel submits that prayer for examination of handwriting by expert in respect of signature on photocopy is permissible and cannot be rejected only on the ground that the document is a photocopy. With these submissions he prays for allowing the miscellaneous petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the miscellaneous petition with the sole submission that expert opinion in respect of a photocopy of a document MOU is not permissible and trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions of coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Mahesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRR No.443/2014 decided on 16.11.2015 (at Jabalpur); Aneesh Kumar Dhakre and anr. v. Dauli Bai and others, 2016 (2) RN 152; and Abhay Jain and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1839. With these submissions he prays for dismissing the misc. petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Undisputedly in the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction, the defendants have taken defence on the basis of MOU dtd.28.04.1995 (Annexure P/4) and previously the defendants were permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of the MOU by this Court vide order dtd. 24.02.2021 passed in W.P. No. 11848/2017 and expert opinion has been prayed in respect of photocopy of the MOU. So, in the present case only question involved is, as to whether expert opinion can be sought on the basis of photocopy of a document, which is a disputed document amongst the parties.

7. Identical controversy came earlier before this Court in three cases and coordinate benches of this Court held that expert opinion cannot be sought on the basis of photocopy of a document.

(i) In the case of Mahesh (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-

“The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the document which was ph