Denial of Signatures in Pleadings is Not a Valid Ground to Reject an Application for Handwriting Expert Opinion

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land, placing reliance on an Ikrarnama (agreement) dated March 4, 1999.

The respondent (defendant) filed a written statement disputing the authenticity of his signatures on said document.

Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking an expert examination of the signatures.

The Trial Court (III Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dabra) rejected the application on January 16, 2026, reasoning that since the defendant had already denied the signatures, no grounds existed for expert opinion.

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the mere denial of signatures by a defendant in a written statement constitutes a valid ground for a Trial Court to reject an application for a handwriting expert’s opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

2. Whether the denial of a document's execution by a plaintiff’s witness (PW/4) precludes the plaintiff from seeking expert opinion on the disputed signatures.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits the court to seek the opinion of experts on points of science or art, including the identity of handwriting.

Division Bench precedent in L.S. Trading Company (M/s.) v. Manish Mishra (2010), which established that when signatures are disputed, such dispute itself constitutes a valid ground for seeking an expert’s opinion to "take out the grain from the chaff".

Section 67 of the Evidence Act regarding the various modes of proving signatures and handwriting.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning—that a denial of signatures removes the need for an expert—to be legally unsustainable and contrary to established precedent.

The Court observed that the very purpose of Section 45 is activated when such a dispute arises; a denial necessitates, rather than precludes, expert evidence.

The evidentiary value or credibility of a witness's testimony (PW/4) is a matter for final adjudication and cannot deprive a party of a legally permissible mode of proving a document during the trial process.

The court emphasized that it must only examine if the expert opinion is relevant and necessary for effective adjudication.

The High Court set aside the order dated January 16, 2026, and allowed the petition, directing the Trial Court to afford the petitioner an opportunity to have the signatures examined by a handwriting expert.

It further granted the respondent the right to seek a second expert opinion should the first report be adverse to them.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.