Civil Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over document examination in ongoing civil proceedings, any interference from criminal authorities violates judicial authority.

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by SHO, Police Station New Baradari, Jalandhar, seeking permission to take the original Will dated 16.06.2023 on record of the civil suit for forensic examination (FSL) in connection with FIR No.108/2024 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, was allowed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner–plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and possession on the basis of the Will dated 16.06.2023, executed by late Rajesh Sharda, in her favour. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed their written statement and the matter is still at the pleadings stage, with no issues yet framed.

3. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the SHO concerned moved an application before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, seeking permission to take the original Will for its examination by the FSL, on the ground that the same is a crucial document in the investigation of the aforesaid FIR lodged at the instance of respondent No. 1. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 13.10.2025, allowed the said application subject to safeguards, directing that the Ahlmad would hand over the original Will to the authorized Investigating Officer after due record, acknowledgment, and upon placing a certified copy in the civil file.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles of law, as the Will dated 16.06.2023 is the foundation document of the civil suit, and its genuineness can be adjudicated only by the competent Civil Court. It is contended that allowing police authorities to take custody of the original document pending civil adjudication amounts to interference with civil proceedings and prejudices the petitioner’s right to prove execution of the Will through attesting witnesses.

6. It is further argued that the civil proceedings are at the preliminary stage, and the question of genuineness of the Will can be determined under the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC, if the Court deems it necessary, by appointing a commission for scientific investigation. Thus, the learned Civil Judge erred in handing over the document to the SHO, who is not a party to the civil suit and had filed the application on the criminal side.

7. It is also urged that respondent No. 1 had already obtained a private handwriting expert report negating the Will, and the registration of the FIR was itself based on that private report. Therefore, seeking another report from FSL amounts to fishing evidence against the petitioner. The learned trial Court, while acting as a Civil Judge, exercised powers vested under criminal jurisdiction, thereby vitiating the order.

8. The matter being limited in scope and involving a short question of law, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondents.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the controversy revolves around whether the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) could, during pendency of the civil proceedings, permit the investigating agency to take the original Will for FSL examination.

10. It is not disputed that th