IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 5347 of 2025 BETIDEVI AND OTHERS Versus SUSHILA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pavan Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Dileep Awasthi- Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER This Misc. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioners/plaintiffs assailing the order dated 26th of August, 2025, passed by the Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambah, District Morena, in Regular Civil Suit No. 72-A of 2022, whereby the application filed by petitioners under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for examination of disputed signatures of respondent No. 1 on the agreement dated 11-07-2019 by a handwriting expert has been rejected.

2. A few facts giving rise to the present petition, as narrated therein, are that petitioners have instituted a civil suit against respondent No. 1 seeking a declaration of rights and permanent injunction, praying that the sale deed dated 11.07.2019 be declared null, void, and inoperative along with consequential reliefs. It was contended that the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 4, Late Kok Singh, was indebted to respondent No. 1 for a loan. It is alleged that under the guise of discharging this debt, a sale deed was executed by Late Kok Singh in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit property on 11.07.2019. The petitioners further alleged that on the same date, an agreement was executed between Kok Singh and respondent No. 1, whereby respondent No. 1 agreed to reconvey the property to Kok Singh if the loan was repaid. It was contended that the agreement dated 11.07.2019 is genuine and valid, bearing the signatures of respondent No. 1. However, respondent No.1 has denied his signatures on the agreement, thereby disputing its authenticity. The petitioners, therefore, moved an application before the trial court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to have the disputed signatures on the agreement examined by a handwriting expert, with a comparison to his admitted signatures on the sale deed of the same date. This application was, however, rejected by the trial court vide impugned order

26.08.2025, leading to the filing of the present petition.

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that the impugned order results in a grave miscarriage of justice. The rejection of the application deprives them of presenting material evidence that is crucial for proving their case. The genuineness of the agreement is seriously disputed, and the trial court erred in not permitting expert examination of disputed signatures. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which recognizes expert opinion in matters of handwriting and signatures, and the trial court's refusal to allow expert examination frustrates the objective of the provision. The trial court's decision to reject the application goes against settled legal principles in the light of law laid down in the cases of Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 and O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran, (1996) 2 SCC 704, which support allowing expert testimony when signatures are disputed. The refusal to allow expert examination prevents a fair adjudication of their case and violates their right to lead relevant evidence in support of their claim.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposed the petition, submitting that the trial court's decision to reject the application was justified. The application for expert examination was merely an attempt to delay proceedings and there was no sufficient basis to doubt the authenticity of the agreement. The petitioners had not demonstrated why expert examination was absolutely necessary, given the available evidence.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon peru