A second handwriting-expert opinion is not automatic, particularly when sought belatedly to fill evidentiary lacunae.

The petitioner, a defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 111 of 2014, sought under Order XI Rule 14 CPC and Sections 39, 41 and 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) to have the plaintiff produce two original sale deeds and to send them, along with the disputed sale deed, for expert comparison of signatures.

The Trial Court rejected the application, finding that it was a belated attempt to fill gaps after cross-examination and that the written statement did not plead the proposed comparison.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application to compel production of the two sale deeds and obtain a further handwriting-expert comparison.

Whether the rejection disclosed a gross or material error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XI Rule 14 CPC concerns production of documents; Sections 39, 41 and 72 of the BSA address expert opinion and comparison of handwriting or signatures.

The Court applied the supervisory standard under Article 227: interference is not warranted merely because another view is possible, and is justified where the subordinate court’s order is materially or grossly erroneous.

It also observed that the cited decisions—Tadi Suryanarayana Reddy v. Mylavarapu Rama Venkata Krishna Narasimha Rao and Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu—do not establish that every request for a second expert opinion must be allowed; a further reference may be made in special circumstances for stated reasons.

The Court found no basis to disturb the Trial Court’s decision.

The petitioner had not pleaded that the disputed signature should be compared with an admitted signature, and the application was made after the plaintiff and the handwriting expert had been cross-examined.

Further, the 1999 deed relied on by the petitioner contained no signature of the plaintiff as purchaser, so it could not provide the proposed comparison material.

The Court therefore found no perversity or gross error in refusing a further forensic examination.

It noted that the petitioner could obtain an expert opinion using documents in his possession and place it before the Trial Court, which could consider the request in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

The Trial Court’s order rejecting the application remained undisturbed; the petitioner could seek consideration of an expert opinion obtained using documents in his possession, in accordance with law.