[2026:RJ-JP:2644]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5940/2024 Bangali Lal Jha S/o Shri Mahadev Prasad Jha, Aged About 64 Years, R/o House No. 23, Hanuman Vatika, Bhambhori Road, Pindolai, Machwa District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner/Defendant Versus

1. Shivdan Singh S/o Shri Hanuman Singh, R/o House No.

F-9/348, Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)

……..Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Dr. Dinesh Sethi, Documents Examiner And Forensic Concultant, 201, Alankar Tower, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal Mr. Daulat Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

21/01/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the present civil writ petition is finally decided.

2. The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur, District Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Sections 45 and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of

1872”) has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two reports of the same expert i.e. one was brought by the defendant and another one by the plaintiff, were filed. Since, two different reports were placed on record, he filed an application seeking examination of the signatures through FSL. He submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application to send the agreement to sell for examination by the FSL for the purpose of comparing the signatures.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that at an earlier point of time, a similar application was filed by the petitioner under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Act of 1872 and that has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He further contends that the parties thereafter have submitted the report of the same expert and the cross- examination has been conducted by the defendant from the plaintiff’s witness. He, therefore, submits that there is no requirement to send the document for examination by FSL as the parties have to prove their case by their own evidence and expert cannot be made a tool to collect evidence in favour of any of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who was called upon by this Court, considering the fact that there were two different reports, submits that the two reports submitted by him are correct for the reason that the report which was submitted by him on 06.09.2018 wherein the signatures marked on the Ekrarnama (agreement) dated 27.11.2009 were compared with signatures marked on two documents namely, the application dated 02.10.2013 and reply notice dated 11.09.2013.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further contended that vide report dated 06.09.2023, signatures marked on the agreement dated 27.11.209 were compared with the document namely application dated 06.04.2009 addressed to Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and therefore, he submits that the comparison which were made with the document dated 27.11.2019 were totally different.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. This Court finds that the earlier application of the petitioner for sending the document for the purpose of examination by the FSL was rejected. This Court also finds that both the parties are required to prove their own case by there own evidence and further, the defendant’s evidence is yet to be completed.

8. This Court also finds that if the reports are thereon record placed on the different signatures with which it was compared, both the parties will have full opportunity to support there own case. An expert opinion cannot, in any circumstance, be used as a means to collect evidence for the benefit of either party.

9. It is also a settled principle of law that after completion of the evidence