Telangana HC Upholds Refusal To Test Disputed Sale Agreement For Injunction, Leaves Buyer Free To Seek Expert Review In Suit

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement described as a Bhu Vikraya Pathram and for related declaratory reliefs.

She also sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties.

After the defendants disputed the deceased executant’s signature on the agreement, the plaintiff applied in the injunction application to have the original agreement and other documents referred to a handwriting expert.

The trial court dismissed that application, while granting liberty to seek expert examination in the suit proceedings.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to direct scientific investigation where it considers such investigation necessary for resolving a matter in dispute; Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 concerns the relevance of expert opinion.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern interim injunctions, for which the applicant must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

The Court considered Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1549), which the trial court had relied on, but did not set out a general rule from that decision.

The Court also held that requiring a party to undertake not to challenge an adverse expert opinion was not a lawful reason to refuse referral.

The plaintiff sought expert examination specifically to assist in deciding an interim injunction application, while the suit had not reached trial and the document had not been marked as an exhibit.

The Court held that the trial court was justified in declining the request in that interlocutory application and in preserving the plaintiff’s liberty to seek expert examination in the suit proceedings.

However, the trial court’s observation that referral would serve no purpose unless the plaintiff promised not to challenge an adverse opinion was contrary to law; that reason was therefore set aside.

The Court distinguished the plaintiff’s cited authorities because they concerned different issues or applications seeking expert examination for adjudication of the suit itself.

The finding based on the plaintiff’s refusal to undertake not to challenge an adverse expert opinion was set aside.

The plaintiff retained liberty to seek expert examination in the main suit at trial or at a later stage of those proceedings; no costs were ordered.