IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN st ON THE 1 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6135 of 2025 AJAY KUMAR A. K. A. AJEET TALREJA Versus RANJEET RAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Naveen Vaswani - Advocate for the Petitioner.

ORDER The present Petition has been filed by the Plaintiff challenging the Order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act whereby the Petitioner/Plaintiff had sought permission to get the questioned Power of Attorney examined by handwriting expert as regards signatures contained therein from the photocopy of the questioned Power of Attorney.

2. It is the case of Petitioner/Plaintiff that he has filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed. The sale deed is alleged to be executed by a person projecting himself to be the Power of Attorney of the Petitioner/Plaintiff and he executed a sale deed on the strength of this allegedly forged Power of Attorney dated 21.02.1997. The said alleged Power of Attorney has been impleaded as defendant No.1. However, the said Power of Attorney has not chosen to appear before the Trial Court and has been proceeded ex parte.

3. It is contended that the Petitioner/Plaintiff is not in possession of the original thereof and the original must have been in possession of the alleged Power of Attorney i.e, defendant No.1. The Petitioner has obtained the certified copy of Power of Attorney from the Office of Registrar which was submitted alongwith execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 substantively acting as Power of Attorney holder of the Petitioner. It is argued that the original is not in possession and power of the Petitioner/Plaintiff and it must be in possession of the defendant No.1 who has been proceeded ex parte. It cannot therefore, be called before the Court and the Petitioner wants to take defence of his signatures on the Power of Attorney being forged and there is no other means for the same except the signatures on the photo copy of the Power of Attorney for examining the questioned signatures with admitted and standard signatures.

4. Upon considering this assertion of learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the actual Power of Attorney was executed in the year 1997 whereas a sale deed on the strength of the same was executed in the year 2006 by the defendant No.1 whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2014.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner when faced with query of the Court that whether any criminal action has been taken by the Petitioner against the alleged Power of Attorney holder who has executed sale deed in favour of third parties by allegedly posing himself as Power of Attorney holder of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner was not in a position to tender any reply.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had relied on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.R.No.2047/2018 (Jasbir Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Others) to contend that examination of signatures can take place also from the photocopy of the document.

7. However, all these issues have already been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M.P. No.5168/2023 (Bhupesh Agrawal Vs. S.M. Choudhary & Another) and even the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) has been considered by the coordinate bench and it has been held by the coordinate bench that expert opinion cannot be sought on the basis of photocopy of a document and the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) has been distinguished after due consideration. The coordinate bench in M.P.No.5168/2023 has held as under:-

"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