Expert opinion on disputed signatures is essential for adjudication when genuineness impacts the core controversy of a suit.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance against the respondents regarding land in Village Sirol, Gwalior

The plaintiff claimed a written agreement to sell was executed on 01.07.2017 following an oral agreement

Respondent No. 6 denied executing the agreement and specifically disputed his signatures on the Bhatwara Panji (partition record) dated 02.12.2005, despite admitting signatures on related sale deeds from 2004 and 2007

During cross-examination, the petitioner moved an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) for expert examination of the disputed signatures

The Trial Court rejected the application on 21.04.2026, erroneously concluding the Bhatwara Panji was ineffective

The petitioner challenged this under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for handwriting expert examination by failing to consider the restoration of the disputed document in review proceedings.

2. Whether scientific examination of disputed signatures is necessary for the just adjudication of the suit when the genuineness of a document is central to the title dispute.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), which stipulates that the opinion of experts upon a point of handwriting is a relevant fact

Precedent of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2020) 3 SCC 794, which established that scientific comparison of handwriting is a relevant form of evidence to aid the court in reaching a just conclusion

Principle from L.S. Trading Company v. Manish Mishra (2010) 4 MPLJ 228, holding that where signatures are material to the controversy, expert examination should be allowed in the interest of justice

The High Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning factually and legally infirm because it ignored that the Bhatwara Panji had been restored in review proceedings via an order dated 21.01.2022

The Court reasoned that since Respondent No. 6 took contradictory stands—admitting signatures on sale deeds while denying them on the Bhatwara Panji—the genuineness of the signatures went to the "root of the controversy"

Applying the cited precedents, the Court determined that scientific evidence is a vital tool for the judiciary to appreciate evidence in its proper perspective, and denying the application resulted in a failure to provide the petitioner an opportunity to establish the authenticity of material documents

The High Court allowed the Miscellaneous Petition and set aside the Trial Court's order dated 21.04.2026. It held the Trial Court's approach was unsustainable and directed the Trial Court to take appropriate steps for the examination of Respondent No. 6’s signatures by a handwriting expert and to proceed with the trial expeditiously