High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Application to Send Document for Expert Opinion in Specific Performance Suit. Trial court erred in refusing to send disputed sale agreement to handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as the document's genuineness was in serious dispute.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: KALABURAGI In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 00:18:32

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Veeranagouda, was the defendant in O.S. No. 334/2015 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur, filed by the first respondent, Sanna Hanumappa, seeking a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.05.2012. The petitioner contended that the agreement was forged and that his father, Basanagouda, who was dead, had not executed it. During the trial, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the disputed agreement to a handwriting expert for comparison of his father's signature. The trial court rejected the application on 14.10.2016, holding that the document was already marked as an exhibit and the application was filed belatedly. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The High Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State respondents. The court noted that the genuineness of the document was in serious dispute and the defendant had a right to rebut the plaintiff's case. The court held that the trial court's order was erroneous and suffered from material irregularity. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2016, and directed the trial court to send the disputed document to a handwriting expert for opinion, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 2,000 to the plaintiff. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Specific Performance - Expert Opinion - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The petitioner/defendant in a suit for specific performance sought to send the disputed sale agreement to a handwriting expert to compare the signature of the defendant's father, who was dead. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the document was already marked as an exhibit and the application was filed belatedly. The High Court held that the trial court's order was erroneous as the genuineness of the document was in serious dispute and the defendant had a right to rebut the plaintiff's case. The court set aside the order and directed the trial court to send the document to a handwriting expert for opinion, subject to payment of costs. (Paras 4-6)

B) Evidence Act - Handwriting Expert - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court observed that when the execution of a document is disputed, it is a fit case to send the document to a handwriting expert for comparison, especially when the alleged executant is dead. The court relied on the principle that expert opinion is admissible to prove or disprove the genuineness of a document. (Paras 4-5)

C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct an error of law committed by the trial court in rejecting the application for expert opinion. The court held that the trial court's order suffered from material irregularity and was liable to be set aside. (Para 6)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendant/petitioner to send the disputed sale agreement to a handwriting expert for comparison and opinion, in a suit for specific performance of contract.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur, in O.S. No. 334/2015, and directed the trial court to send the disputed document to a handwriting expert for opinion, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 2,000 to the plaintiff. The trial court was also directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.

Law Points

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act
1872
expert opinion
handwriting expert
specific performance
agreement to sell
disputed document
trial court discretion
revisional jurisdiction
Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1863

WP No. 207093 of 2017 (GM-ST/RN)

2024-02-29

V Srishananda

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1863

Sri Mahantesh Patil (for petitioner), Smt. Maya T. R, HCGP (for respondents 2 and 3)

Sri Veeranagouda

Sanna Hanumappa, Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, District Registrar and Registrar of Firms

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging an order of the trial court rejecting an application to send a disputed document to a handwriting expert in a suit for specific performance of contract.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner/defendant sought to set aside the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur, in O.S. No. 334/2015, and to allow the application to send the disputed sale agreement to a handwriting expert.

Filing Reason

The trial court rejected the petitioner's application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the disputed agreement to a handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of the petitioner's deceased father.

Previous Decisions

The trial court rejected the application on 14.10.2016, holding that the document was already marked as an exhibit and the application was filed belatedly.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application to send the disputed document to a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the disputed agreement was forged and that his father's signature needed to be compared by an expert to establish the truth. The respondents (State) did not oppose the petition, and the first respondent was served but did not appear.

Ratio Decidendi

When the genuineness of a document is in serious dispute and the alleged executant is dead, it is a fit case to send the document to a handwriting expert for comparison under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial court's rejection of such an application on the ground of belated marking of the document is erroneous and amounts to material irregularity, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3/State. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer :- Plaintiff in O.S.No.334/2015 sought for decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.05.2012. In the said suit, defendant/petitioner herein filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed document to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of the father of the defendant. The said application came to be rejected by the learned trial Judge vide order dated 14.10.2016. In this case, the genuineness of the document is in serious dispute and the father of the defendant is dead. Therefore, it is a fit case to send the document to the handwriting expert for comparison. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.10.2016 passed in O.S.No.334/2015 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to send the disputed document to the handwriting expert for opinion, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiff. The trial Court is also directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 334/2015 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.05.2012. The defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the disputed agreement to a handwriting expert. The trial court rejected the application on 14.10.2016. The defendant then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, which was allowed on 29.02.2024.