A suit’s age alone cannot justify refusing handwriting-expert examination of a disputed signature.

The petitioner/plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance, alleging that the defendants had executed an agreement to sell the suit property.

The defendants denied execution.

During cross-examination, DW-1 denied the signature attributed to him on the agreement.

The petitioner applied to recall DW-1, reopen the case for further evidence, and have the disputed signature compared with an admitted signature by a handwriting expert.

The Trial Court rejected I.A. Nos. 18–20, citing the age of the suit.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s applications to recall DW-1, reopen the case, and refer the disputed signature for expert comparison

2. Whether the age of the suit, by itself, justified refusing those applications

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

It rests on the procedural principle that, where execution of a document and the signature attributed to a party are disputed, the court may permit further evidence and expert comparison when necessary to address the dispute and avoid future complications.

The judgment does not set out a broader test or identify a particular source for that principle.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had examined an attesting witness, but DW-1 had denied the signature on the agreement.

It considered expert comparison of the disputed signature with an admitted signature an appropriate step to avoid future complications.

The Trial Court’s stated reason—that the suit was old—did not adequately justify rejecting the applications; the High Court held that the resulting refusal was arbitrary and erroneous.

It allowed I.A. Nos. 18–20, subject to the petitioner paying costs of ₹10,000 to the respondents on the next hearing date before the Trial Court.