The court ruled that applications for expert opinion on disputed signatures should be made at an appropriate stage in the trial, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need for proper evidence before such requests.

ORDER :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Sri Nadipally Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Despite Service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

3. The petitioner herein has filed a suit vide O.S.No.11 of 2024 against the respondent herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.12.2021. In the said suit, respondent/defendant had filed written statement contending that the said agreement of sale dated 08.12.2021 is a fake one and she has disputed her signature on the said agreement of sale. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, trial Court has framed issues and posted the suit for trial.

4. The respondent had filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, vide I.A.No.283 of 2025 in O.S.No.11 of 2024 contending that she is disputing her signature on the said agreement of sale, dated 08.12.2021 on the non-judicial stamp paper dated 08.02.2021. Therefore, to prove the said contention, the said agreement of sale has to be sent to an expert for opinion.

5. The petitioner opposed the said application contending that the said application was filed at initial stage. It has to be filed after examination of witnesses.

6. Vide impugned order, dated 18.10.2025, learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal, allowed the said application holding that the respondent/defendant contended that she never executed any document in favour of the plaintiff and she disputed her signatures on the said agreement of sale, the said non judicial stamp paper does not belong to her, therefore, it has to be sent to an Expert for opinion. Accordingly, the trial Court sent the non judicial stamp paper/ agreement of sale dated 08.12.2021 to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) along with the admitted signatures of the defendant, for comparison and opinion. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.

7. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein/plaintiff that the trial Court has framed issues in the said suit and posted the suit for trial. Therefore, the respondent/defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the said agreement of sale on non-judicial stamp paper dated 08.02.2021 for comparison and opinion. It is a pre-mature stage. Without considering the same, learned trial Court had allowed the said application.

8. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are extracted below:

“45. Opinions of experts. —When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.”

“73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.—In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impr