Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions filed by the petitioners (defendants in a suit) challenging an order of the Trial Court dismissing their application under Exhibit 67. The application sought three reliefs: (a) to summon the plaintiff's witness No. 2, Mr. Naileshsinh Bhagwansinh Rathod, to give sample signatures for comparison with documents Exhibit-60 and Exhibit-61; (b) to send those documents to a handwriting expert or forensic department for comparison; and (c) to take action for perjury against the plaintiff and the witness after receiving the expert report. The petitioners also sought deferment of evidence until the report was obtained. The Trial Court dismissed the application. The petitioners argued that the signatures of the attesting witness on Exhibits 60 and 61 were entirely different, and the Trial Court had deprived them of the opportunity to prove forgery. They relied on the case of The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram to argue that the court could compel a witness to give sample signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that Section 73 does not empower a court to compel a witness to give sample signatures; it only allows the court to compare signatures already on record. The court also noted that the power to send documents to a handwriting expert is discretionary and not a matter of right. The Trial Court's order was not perverse or arbitrary, and no interference was warranted. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Evidence Act - Handwriting Expert - Section 73 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Compelling Sample Signatures - The court held that Section 73 does not empower a court to compel a witness to give sample signatures for comparison; it only allows the court to compare signatures already on record. The Trial Court's refusal to send documents to a handwriting expert was upheld as discretionary and not perverse. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Deferment of Evidence - Application for Deferment - The petitioner's prayer to defer evidence pending expert report was rejected as the main application for expert opinion was dismissed. The court found no ground to interfere with the Trial Court's order. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application seeking to send documents for handwriting expert opinion and to compel the plaintiff's witness to give sample signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned order of the Trial Court is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 does not empower a court to compel a witness to give sample signatures for comparison
- Power to send documents to handwriting expert is discretionary and not a matter of right
- Application for deferring evidence cannot be granted without sufficient cause
