Dismissed¶19

Kaushalya Devi and Anr. v. Yatinder Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Mar 2025CR/158/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kaushalya Devi v. Yatinder Kumar, Civil Revision No. 158 of 2024, HP High Court, decided 10.03.2025, Satyen Vaidya J. Keywords: Section 45 Indian Evidence Act 1872; Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure; expert opinion handwriting finger impression; comparison of signatures with admitted signatures; specific performance of agreement to sell; stage for forming expert opinion; appreciation of evidence; foreclosure of jurisdiction; Senior Civil Judge (2) Shimla; revision dismissed impugned order affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed and impugned order affirmed, with a clarification that the Court will not be precluded from forming an opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 at the appropriate stage of the proceedings; pending applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶19

Kaushalya Devi and Anr. Vs Yatinder Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court rightly rejected the petitioners' application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking orders to get the signatures of defendant No.1 compared with his admitted signatures. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

No illegality was found in the impugned order insofar as the prayer made by the petitioners was rejected; the impugned order is affirmed and the petition is dismissed.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vests the Court with jurisdiction to seek the opinion of an expert, including on handwriting or finger impression, and the appropriate stage for forming such opinion is when the Court appreciates the evidence led before it.

¶18

Key takeaways

The learned trial Court erred in observing that, since the parties had already led the evidence, it need not seek the opinion of a handwriting expert; such a conclusion amounts to foreclosure of the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction and can be drawn only after appreciation of the entire material on record.ratio¶18
It is clarified that the Court will not be precluded from forming an opinion as required under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if so required, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (HP High Court) — Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking comparison of defendant No.1's signatures with his admitted signatures, filed after parties had concluded evidence in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, was rejected by the learned Senior Civil Judge (2), Shimla. Held: (i) no illegality in the rejection of the prayer; impugned order affirmed and revision dismissed; (ii) however, Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vests the Court with jurisdiction to seek expert opinion, including on handwriting or finger impression, and the appropriate stage for forming such opinion is when the Court appreciates the evidence led before it — an observation that expert opinion is unnecessary merely because evidence has concluded amounts to foreclosure of the Court's jurisdiction; (iii) the trial Court is not precluded from forming an opinion under Section 45 at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Revision No. 158 of 2024.

¶3

Decided on : 10th March, 2025.

¶4

Kaushalya Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Yatinder Kumar & Ors. ... .Respondents.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶8

Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2(a) and 2(b).

¶9

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

¶10

Heard.

¶11

By way of this petition, order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (2), Shimla in Case bearing registration No. 9004772/18 has been assailed whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking orders of the learned trial Court to get the signatures of defendant No.1 compared with his admitted signatures has been rejected.

¶12

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

…2…

¶14

The dispute in nutshell is that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against the respondents/defendants. It is averred that respondent No.1 has signed the agreement for himself and defendant No.2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has specifically denied his signature on the agreement.

¶15

The parties have led the evidence. Petitioner is stated to have examined witnesses, who allegedly had seen the execution of the agreement. After completion of entire evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondents contested the application and the same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.08.2024.

¶16

I have not found any illegality in the order in so far as the prayer made by the petitioners has been rejected. However, it needs to be noticed that Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vests the Court with jurisdiction to seek opinion of an expert, when the Court has to form an opinion as to various matters prescribed in the provision including the handwriting or finger impression of a person. I am of the

¶17

…3…

¶18

considered view that the appropriate stage for forming such opinion by the Court can be the one when such Court appreciates evidence led before it. Ignoring such aspect of the matter, the learned trial Court has erred in observing that since the parties have already led the evidence, the Court does not deem necessary to seek opinion from handwriting expert. It amounts to foreclosure of exercise of its jurisdiction by the Court. Such a conclusion can be drawn by the Court only after the appreciation of the entire material on record which I find missing in the instant case.

¶19

In result, though impugned order is affirmed and the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the Court will not be precluded from forming an opinion as required under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if so required, at appropriate stage of the proceedings. Petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.

¶20

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶21

10^th March, 2025. (jai)

Kaushalya Devi and Anr. v. Yatinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushalya Devi and Anr. v. Yatinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Thakur Vs Sonam Angmo and Others

Ravinder Kumar Bansal Vs Pankaj Gupta

Hari Singh Vs State of Hp

Sushil Chauhan Vs Ankush

Indira Devi Vs Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur and Another

Vijay Kumar Vs Divisional Commissioner Kangra and Another