Permitting handwriting expert inspection despite omission from witness list is valid to ensure interest of justice.

The petitioner (defendant) challenged an order dated December 9, 2025, passed by the Trial Court.

The respondent (plaintiff) had filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to inspect original documents signed by Mr. Anil Kumar and take photographs for forensic examination.

The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to include a handwriting expert in the list of witnesses filed on January 2, 2018, and provided no sufficient cause for this omission as required under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC.

The respondent sought the expert testimony to refute evidence previously produced by the petitioner, specifically a family settlement dated May 23, 2009, which the petitioner had already supported with a handwriting expert's report dated April 14, 2023.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the respondent to engage a handwriting expert at a belated stage despite the witness not being mentioned in the original list of witnesses.

2. Whether the omission to mention the witness in the list was bona fide and constituted “sufficient cause” under Order XVI Rule 1(3) of the CPC.

The Court applied Order XVI Rule 1 and 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates the filing of a list of witnesses within fifteen days of settling issues but grants the Court discretion to permit additional witnesses if “sufficient cause” is shown for the omission.

The Court relied on Dinesh Jain v. Krishan Kumar Gupta [CM(M) 885/2008], which establishes that while the list of witnesses is not a mere formality, a bona fide mistake or sufficient reason warrants the Court’s intervention to allow such evidence.

It also considered the precedent in Ashok Sharma v. Ram Adhar Sharma (2009) 11 SCC 47 regarding procedural compliance.

The High Court observed that the core of the dispute revolves around a family settlement dated May 23, 2009, the onus of proving which lies on the petitioner.

Since the petitioner had already examined a handwriting expert (DW-3) and produced a report as late as 2023, the Court reasoned that denying the respondent the same opportunity would be unjust.

The Court found that although there was a delay, the respondent’s request was necessary to refute the petitioner’s evidence.

The Court determined that the omission was bona fide given the stage of the proceedings and the fact that the expert testimony would assist the Trial Court in arriving at a just conclusion regarding the authenticity of the settlement.

The Court held that in the interest of justice, the respondent must be allowed to inspect the file and obtain photographs for expert analysis, as the petitioner had already relied on a similar expert.

The Trial Court’s decision was upheld as a well-reasoned order that correctly exercised judicial discretion under Section 151 and Order XVI of the CPC.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.