SATISH VYAS vs SURYAKANT VYAS AND ORS
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
[2026:RJ-JD:39030]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1311/2017
CNR: RJHC010265542017 | URN: CW / 2624U / 2017
Satish Vyas S/o Late Shrikrishan Vyas, r/o 10/19, chopasni
Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1.Suryakant Vyas S/o Late Shrikrishan Vyas, R/o 11/966
Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Shashikant Vyas S/o Late Shrikrishan Vyas, R/o 17-E-31/19,
chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Defendants No.4 & 5)
----Respondent
PERFORMA RESPONDENTS:-
3. General Public
4. B.R. Mirdha Government Education College Naguar through its
Principal
respondents/defendant No.1 & 2)
/
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 12/08/2026
Date on which Order is Reserved : 12/08/2026
Full Order or Operative Part : Full Order
Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the learned
District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Civil Original Suit No.
212/2012, whereby the application preferred by respondent Nos.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(2 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
1 and 2 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
seeking examination of the disputed document, Exhibit A-1, by a
handwriting expert through the Forensic Science Laboratory
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the FSL’), came to be allowed.
2. The controversy emanates from proceedings instituted by
the petitioner in the year 2010 under Sections 372 and 370 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking issuance of a succession
certificate and probate on the basis of a Will dated 28.05.2007.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the proceedings by filing a
joint written statement, alleging concealment of another Will
purportedly executed subsequent to the demise of the petitioner's
father and disputing the genuineness of the document relied upon
by the petitioner.
2.1. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent Nos.1
and 2 initially sought production of the disputed Will under Order
XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC. Upon the petitioner's denial of possession
of its original, they moved an application seeking permission to
lead secondary evidence, which was allowed by the learned Trial
Court vide order dated 22.09.2014. The photocopy of the disputed
Will was consequently exhibited as Exhibit A-1.
2.2. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 moved an application
under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking
examination of Exhibit A-1 by a handwriting expert to ascertain
the genuineness of the signature attributed to the petitioner and
also sought deferment of his further cross-examination. The
petitioner, during his cross-examination, denied the disputed
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(3 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
signature, whereupon the respondents reiterated the necessity of
expert examination.
2.3. The application seeking expert examination was initially
rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 08.12.2015.
The said order was challenged before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 3052/2016, which was allowed vide order dated
11.04.2016, directing fresh consideration of the application on
merits. Pursuant thereto, the learned Trial Court allowed the
application vide order dated 24.05.2016, directing transmission of
the disputed document to the FSL. However, the said order was
set aside by a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 6830/2016, vide order dated 10.11.2016, with a
direction to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the parties.
2.4. Upon reconsideration, the learned Trial Court, vide the
impugned order dated 04.01.2017, allowed the application
preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, permitting examination of the disputed
document by a handwriting expert. Aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined
the material available on record carefully.
4. The principal question arising for consideration is whether, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Trial
Court was justified in permitting examination of the disputed
document, Exhibit A-1, by a handwriting expert, notwithstanding
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(4 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
that the document available for examination is a photocopy and
the petitioner has denied the signature attributed to him thereon.
5. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions, it is
necessary to observe that the application preferred by respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 does not arise in isolation or as an attempt to
introduce an altogether new controversy at an advanced stage of
the proceedings. The request for expert examination has its
genesis in the respondents' earlier attempt to secure production of
the original document, the petitioner's denial of possession
thereof, the subsequent permission granted to lead secondary
evidence and, finally, the petitioner's denial of his signature on the
document tendered in evidence.
6. The sequence of events is material. Respondent Nos.1 and 2
initially sought production of the disputed Will through an
application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC. When the
petitioner denied possession of the original, the respondents
placed a photocopy of the document before the learned Trial Court
and sought permission to lead secondary evidence. Such
permission was granted vide order dated 22.09.2014, whereafter
the photocopy was tendered in evidence as Exhibit A-1. It was
only thereafter, and in the context of the petitioner's denial of the
signature attributed to him, that the respondents pursued their
request for examination by a handwriting expert.
6.1. In these circumstances, the application for expert
examination has to be considered in the context of the evidentiary
controversy already arising between the parties. The genuineness
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(5 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
of the disputed signature is not an incidental or collateral issue
having no bearing on the proceedings. On the contrary, the
respondents assert that the disputed Will is material to the
succession-related relief claimed by the petitioner, whereas the
petitioner disputes the signature attributed to him on the
document. The authenticity and evidentiary worth of the
document may, therefore, have a bearing on the adjudication of
the substantive dispute.
6.2. The power of the Court to obtain an expert opinion on a
question involving handwriting is recognised under Section 45 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides for the
consideration of the opinion of persons specially skilled in a
relevant field when the Court is required to form an opinion upon
a matter falling within their expertise. The provision enables the
Court to obtain assistance on a technical question which may not
be satisfactorily resolved merely by considering the rival
assertions of the parties.
6.3. It is equally well settled that an expert opinion is an opinion
expressed by a person possessing specialised knowledge and does
not, by itself, conclusively determine the disputed fact. The weight
to be attached to such an opinion depends upon the material
examined, the reasons supporting the opinion, the methodology
adopted and the overall evidence available on record. The ultimate
determination of the genuineness of the disputed signature
remains within the domain of the Court, which must evaluate the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(6 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
expert opinion along with the other evidence in accordance with
law.
6.4. In the present case, the petitioner has denied his signature
on Exhibit A-1. Such denial places the authenticity of the signature
in issue. Once the document has been permitted to be tendered in
secondary evidence, the question whether the signature appearing
thereon is genuine becomes a matter which may legitimately call
for technical examination, provided the available material is
suitable for such examination. The respondents' request is,
therefore, directed towards obtaining assistance on a disputed
question of fact which is relevant to the adjudication of the
proceedings.
6.5. A further circumstance which assumes significance is that
the original document was sought from the petitioner by resorting
to the procedure contemplated under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of
the CPC, but the petitioner denied having the same in his
possession. The respondents thereafter sought permission to lead
secondary evidence and produced a photocopy of the disputed
Will. The learned Trial Court permitted such evidence to be led
vide order dated 22.09.2014, and the document was subsequently
marked as Exhibit A-1.
6.6. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between permission
to lead secondary evidence and proof of the contents, execution or
genuineness of the document. The mere fact that a photocopy has
been permitted to be tendered in secondary evidence does not
automatically establish the execution of the document or the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(7 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
genuineness of the signature appearing thereon. Equally, the mere
marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the
requirement of proving it in accordance with law. These questions
remain matters for consideration by the learned Trial Court while
appreciating the evidence as a whole.
6.7. Nevertheless, the distinction noticed above does not furnish
a reason to prohibit expert examination at the present stage. The
purpose of permitting the document to be examined is not to
confer upon Exhibit A-1 any conclusive evidentiary status, but to
ascertain whether the available material may yield an expert
opinion relevant to the disputed signature. The admissibility of the
document, the conditions governing the reception of secondary
evidence, the proof of its contents and the ultimate evidentiary
value to be attached to it are separate questions which must be
addressed in accordance with the applicable law.
6.8. The objection that Exhibit A-1 is only a photocopy also
requires consideration in its proper perspective. A photocopy may
not preserve all the features of an original document that could be
relevant to a handwriting examination. The quality of
reproduction, the clarity of the signature, the availability of
suitable comparison material and the limitations inherent in
examining a reproduced image may affect the feasibility and
reliability of the proposed comparison. These considerations are
relevant to the expert's ability to express an opinion and to the
weight that may subsequently be attached to such opinion.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(8 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
6.9. However, the mere circumstance that the disputed document
is a photocopy does not, by itself, establish that expert
examination is wholly impermissible. The question is whether the
available material is capable of being examined and whether the
proposed exercise may assist the Court in resolving the
controversy. Where the feasibility of examination depends upon
the quality of the document or the availability of suitable
specimens, the matter may appropriately be considered by the
expert, subject to the directions of the Court. If the material is
found inadequate for a reliable comparison, the limitations of the
examination can be recorded in the report and taken into account
by the learned Trial Court.
6.10.In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, pursuant to the
earlier order dated 24.05.2016, when the document was
forwarded to the FSL, the Director sought specimen signatures of
the petitioner in three different modes, namely, slow, medium and
fast writing. The material placed before this Court does not
indicate that the Assistant Director of the FSL expressed any
categorical inability to undertake the proposed comparison merely
because the disputed document was a photocopy.
6.11.The request for specimen signatures in different modes
indicates that the examination contemplated involved obtaining
suitable comparison material for assessing the disputed signature.
At the same time, such a request cannot, by itself, be construed
as an assurance that a definitive opinion would necessarily be
possible. The adequacy of the specimen signatures, the suitability
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(9 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
of the photocopy and the scientific limitations, if any, must be
assessed by the expert. The Court is not required, at the stage of
considering whether an expert examination should be permitted,
to anticipate the conclusion that the expert may ultimately reach.
6.12.The appropriate course is, therefore, to permit the proposed
examination where it is capable of assisting the adjudication, while
leaving the expert free to record any limitation arising from the
nature or quality of the material supplied. The opinion, if
furnished, must thereafter be considered by the learned Trial
Court in conjunction with the remaining evidence. Such an
approach ensures that neither party is deprived of a reasonable
opportunity to substantiate its position on the disputed signature
and that the ultimate determination remains with the Court.
7. Another important aspect of the matter is the procedural
history of the application. The respondents' initial application for
expert examination was rejected on 09.10.2014. The subsequent
challenge to the rejection of the application was considered by this
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3052/2016, which was decided
on 11.04.2016 with a direction to the learned Trial Court to
determine the application on merits. Thereafter, the order dated
24.05.2016, passed upon reconsideration, was challenged in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 6830/2016, and a coordinate Bench, vide
order dated 10.11.2016, directed fresh consideration after hearing
the parties.
7.1. The aforesaid history demonstrates that the application has
been considered through successive judicial proceedings and that
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(10 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
the impugned order was passed after the matter was remitted for
fresh consideration. The relevant question, therefore, is whether
the learned Trial Court, while complying with the directions issued
by the coordinate Bench, considered the matter afresh and
exercised its discretion in accordance with law. On examination of
the impugned order and the circumstances leading to it, this Court
finds that the learned Trial Court considered the request for expert
examination in the context of the disputed signature and the
evidentiary material already forming part of the proceedings.
7.2. The fact that the respondents had sought expert examination
at an earlier stage and that the application had undergone
successive rounds of consideration does not, by itself, render the
ultimate decision to permit examination legally unsustainable. The
earlier orders required reconsideration of the application in
accordance with the directions issued by this Court. The impugned
order has to be assessed on its own merits, having regard to the
relevant circumstances and the scope of the application under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
7.3. It is also relevant that the petitioner has denied the
signature attributed to him. In such circumstances, permitting
examination by a handwriting expert does not place the petitioner
at any automatic disadvantage. The petitioner would have the
opportunity, in accordance with law and subject to the directions
of the learned Trial Court, to question the expert's methodology,
the material examined and the conclusions reached. He may also
raise appropriate objections concerning the limitations of
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(11 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
examining a photocopy and the evidentiary value of the resulting
opinion.
7.4. The impugned order does not hold that the disputed
signature is genuine, nor does it declare the Will to have been
duly executed. It merely permits the collection of expert evidence
to assist in determining a disputed factual issue. The distinction is
material because the order under challenge is procedural in nature
and does not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties in the
succession proceedings.
7.5. The ultimate question as to whether the disputed Will was
executed in accordance with law, whether the signature appearing
thereon is genuine, whether the requirements for receiving and
proving the document in secondary evidence have been satisfied,
and what evidentiary weight the document deserves are matters
which remain open for consideration by the learned Trial Court.
Nothing contained in the impugned order or in the present
judgment shall be construed as expressing any concluded opinion
on those questions.
7.6. The learned Trial Court shall, while considering the expert
opinion, if any, ensure that the parties are afforded a reasonable
opportunity to raise legally permissible objections and address the
evidentiary value of the report. The opinion shall be evaluated in
the light of the material on which it is based, the reasons recorded
by the expert and the other evidence available on record. The
learned Trial Court shall thereafter determine the controversy
independently, in accordance with law and without being
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(12 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
influenced by any observation in the impugned order or in the
present proceedings beyond what is necessary to decide the issue
of expert examination.
8. This Court is conscious that the supervisory jurisdiction
conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not
equivalent to an appellate jurisdiction. The power is exercised to
keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and
to ensure that their proceedings are conducted in accordance with
law. Interference is warranted where the impugned order discloses
a jurisdictional error, a patent illegality, a material procedural
irregularity resulting in injustice, or perversity of such a nature as
to call for supervisory correction.
8.1. In the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated that
the learned Trial Court acted beyond its jurisdiction or adopted a
procedure contrary to law in permitting the disputed document to
be examined by a handwriting expert. The decision to obtain
expert assistance on a disputed signature, in the circumstances of
the case, falls within the permissible exercise of judicial discretion.
The fact that the document is a photocopy may affect the
feasibility and weight of the proposed examination, but it does
not, without more, establish a jurisdictional infirmity in the order
permitting such examination.
8.2. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned order dated
04.01.2017 does not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error warranting interference in the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(13 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:39030] [CW-1311/2017]
India. The learned Trial Court has permitted an evidentiary
exercise intended to assist in resolving a disputed question,
without finally determining the authenticity of the document or the
rights asserted by either party. The petitioner has failed to make
out a case for setting aside the said order.
9. Consequently, the instant writ petition, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made
herein are confined to the permissibility of expert examination of
the disputed document and shall not be construed as a finding
regarding the genuineness, execution, admissibility or ultimate
evidentiary value of Exhibit A-1. All such questions shall remain
open for determination by the learned Trial Court in accordance
with law.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No
order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_7 (1763)
S/351
Mamta
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:12:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)