Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kamalkunj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the trial court rejecting its application (Exhibit 107) for referring certain documents to a handwriting expert. The documents were receipts allegedly executed by respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner society. During the trial, the documents were marked as articles but not exhibited because the defendant denied his signature. The trial court rejected the application on two grounds: firstly, the application was filed belatedly, and secondly, the signature of the defendant could be compared with other documents already on record. The High Court, relying on the principle in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal, held that the trial court's reasons were unsustainable. Since the entire controversy in the suit was based on the said receipts, it was just and proper to refer the documents to a handwriting expert. The impugned order was set aside, and the documents were directed to be referred to the handwriting expert. The rule was made absolute with parties bearing their own costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reference to Handwriting Expert - Section 45 Evidence Act, 1872 - Order 26 Rule 10A CPC - Application for referring disputed receipts to handwriting expert rejected by trial court on grounds of delay and availability of other documents for comparison - Held that since the entire suit controversy revolves around the disputed receipts, it is just and proper to refer them to a handwriting expert; trial court's order set aside (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for referring disputed documents to a handwriting expert on grounds of delay and availability of other documents for comparison.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 15.09.2010 is set aside. The documents in question are directed to be referred to the handwriting expert. Rule made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs.
Law Points
- Handwriting expert
- Reference of documents
- Section 45 Evidence Act
- 1872
- Civil Procedure Code
- Order 26 Rule 10A
- Disputed signatures
- Comparison by court
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 104
WRIT PETITION NO.311 OF 2011
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar for the Petitioner, Mr. R.R. Srivastava for the Respondents 1 & 2
Kamalkunj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
Shankar s/o Pundlik Thool, Siddharth @ Shridhar Pundlik Thool, Amarasha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging rejection of application for referring disputed documents to handwriting expert.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of trial court order dated 15.09.2010 and direction to refer documents to handwriting expert.
Filing Reason
Trial court rejected application (Exhibit 107) for referring receipts to handwriting expert on grounds of delay and availability of other documents for comparison.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected application on 15.09.2010.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for referring disputed documents to a handwriting expert on grounds of delay and availability of other documents for comparison.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the disputed receipts are crucial to the suit and should be examined by a handwriting expert.
Respondents opposed the application citing delay and that signatures could be compared with other documents on record.
Ratio Decidendi
When the entire controversy in a suit revolves around disputed documents, it is just and proper to refer them to a handwriting expert for opinion, and rejection on grounds of delay or availability of other documents is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
In my view, since the whole controversy in the suit is based on the said receipts issued by the defendants, it would be just and proper to refer the documents in question to the handwriting expert.
The reasons of the trial Court in rejecting the application therefore cannot be sustained.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a civil suit. During trial, the petitioner produced receipts allegedly executed by respondent no.1. The defendant denied his signature, so the documents were marked as articles but not exhibited. The petitioner filed application Exhibit 107 for referring the documents to a handwriting expert. The trial court rejected the application on 15.09.2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 45
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 26 Rule 10A
