##PAGE1##

CR-2838-2026 (O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2838-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 02.04.2026 Rakesh ...Pe##oner

Versus Jai Singh ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Abhimanu, Advocate for the pe##oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present pe##on has been filed by the pe##oner–

defendant assailing the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned Addi#onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham in Civil Suit No. CS-154-2018 #tled “Jai Singh vs. Rakesh”, whereby the objec#ons preferred by the pe##oner to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) have been

dismissed.

2. The brief factual matrix necessary for adjudica#on of the present pe##on is that the respondent–plain#ff ins#tuted a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 19.05.2016. As per the case set up in the plaint, the s#pulated date for execu#on of the sale deed was 30.11.2016, which was allegedly extended up to 15.05.2017 by virtue of a subsequent agreement dated 29.11.2016. The pe##oner– defendant, while not dispu#ng his signatures on the original agreement to sell, specifically denied the execu#on of the extension agreement dated

29.11.2016.

3. In view of the aforesaid dispute, the pe##oner had earlier sought comparison of his disputed signatures appearing on the extension agreement. The said prayer was declined by the trial Court vide order dated

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.02 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-2838-2026 (O&M) [2]

12.05.2025, which led to filing of Civil Revision No. CR-3126-2025 before this Court. The said revision pe##on was allowed vide order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), direc#ng the trial Court to obtain an expert opinion by geBng the disputed signatures compared with the admiCed signatures of the pe##oner from FSL, Madhuban or any other Government

laboratory.

4. Pursuant to the direc#ons issued by this Court, the maCer was referred to the FSL and an expert report came to be submiCed. Upon receipt of the said report (Annexure P-5), the pe##oner filed objec#ons (Annexure P-7) thereto, primarily contending that the comparison undertaken by the expert was defec#ve, inasmuch as the disputed signatures had not been compared with the admiCed signatures appearing on the vakalatnama (Annexure P-6), but rather with the signatures affixed

on the revenue stamp appended thereto.

5. The learned trial Court, aGer considering the objec#ons so raised, dismissed the same vide the impugned order. It is this order which is

under challenge in the present pe##on.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the pe##oner and having perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in exercise of its revisional

jurisdic#on.

7. At the outset, it requires to be noted that a report of a handwri#ng expert obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory is only an opinion evidence within the meaning of Sec#on 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such an opinion is not substan#ve evidence and is neither conclusive nor binding upon the Court. The eviden#ary value of such a report is to be assessed in conjunc#on with the other evidence on

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.02 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-2838-2026 (O&M) [3]

record at the stage of final adjudica#on.

8. It is a seCled proposi#on of law that objec#ons to an expert report, including the alleged insufficiency of comparison material or the methodology adopted by the expert, go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility per se. Such aspects are required to be tested during the course of trial, par#cularly by way of cross-examina#on of the expert, if

so desired, and by addressing arguments at the final stage.

9. In the present case, the grievance raised by the pe##oner essen#ally pertains to the nature of the admiCed signatures taken into considera#on by the expert. Whether the signatures on the r