Expert opinion on disputed signatures is the prudent course notwithstanding the court’s power of independent comparison.

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement dated 30.10.2021

In their written statement, the respondents (defendants) did not specifically deny the execution of the agreement but claimed that no advance sale consideration was paid

During the trial, Defendant No. 2 (DW-1) categorically denied his signature on every page of the agreement (Ex.P/1) during cross-examination

the petitioner moved an application under Sections 39 and 40 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, read with Order 16 Rule 2(2) of the CPC, to have the signature examined by a handwriting expert

The Trial Court rejected the application on 18.08.2025, reasoning that the defendants had already admitted execution in their pleadings

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for a handwriting expert solely based on pleadings when the defendant subsequently denied his signature during oral evidence

2. Whether it is prudent for a court to compare disputed signatures without the assistance of a scientific expert when a party seeks such an examination

Sections 39 and 40 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act), regarding the relevancy of expert opinions

Section 72 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act), which empowers the court to compare signatures but requires judicial caution

Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal (2008) 4 SCC 530, which established that judicial comparison of signatures without expert assistance is "hazardous and risky"

The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram (1979) 2 SCC 158, stating that the prudent course for a judge is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert rather than performing the comparison alone

The High Court observed that while the defendants' written statement was ambiguous, the explicit denial of signatures by Defendant No. 2 during cross-examination created a material controversy regarding the execution of the agreement

The court reasoned that although Section 72 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam allows a judge to compare signatures, judges are not scientific experts, and such a casual comparison could lead to an erroneous finding

By denying the plaintiff’s request for an expert, the Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction, as the expert's report would provide essential scientific assistance for the court’s ultimate comparison under the law

The court further noted that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants by allowing the application, as they would have the opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert

The Court held that the denial of the signature during evidence necessitated a scientific examination despite the state of the pleadings

The Court allowed the application under Sections 39 and 40 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and directed the Trial Court to take necessary steps to have the document Ex.P/1 examined by a handwriting expert, with the costs to be borne by the petitioner