Delhi High Court
Rahul Tyagi vs Kamlesh & Ors on 12 November, 2025
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12.11.2025
+ CM(M) 2150/2025, CM APPL. 70381/2025 & 70382/2025
RAHUL TYAGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sehdev Gupta and Ms. Nirja,
Advocates.
versus
KAMLESH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R (ORAL)
1. Petitioner/plaintiff has assailed order dated 22.05.2025 of the learned
trial court, whereby his application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence
Act to send the seal covered documents to some government agency for
forensic analysis was dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for
petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice.
2. Broadly speaking, the circumstances relevant for present purposes are
as follows. The petitioner/plaintiff filed certain documents in a sealed cover
before the trial court. Those documents were primarily a Will, General
Power of Attorney and a Possession Letter. The petitioner/plaintiff in the
application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act pleaded that he has
CM(M) 2150/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
Digitally Signed KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.12 17:55:43 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:12.11.2025
18:05:08
reasonable apprehension that those documents were tampered with. This
apprehension of petitioner/plaintiff, according to him was based on his
observation that at the time of opening of the sealed envelope before the trial
court, the seal was found broken. That being so, the application under
Section 45 Evidence Act was filed for directions to send those documents to
government approved or court approved forensic expert for analysis. It also
appears that the learned trial court, in view of the above submissions of
petitioner/plaintiff carried out an administrative enquiry but found nothing to
support the allegation of tampering. From enquiry, it was found that the
plastic tape on the envelope remained intact and so far as cracks in the seal
are concerned, on account of storage of such envelopes in bulk, the same at
times does take place due to weight of the files.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff contends that the apprehension
of the petitioner/plaintiff is not baseless that the documents inside the sealed
cover were tampered with. Learned counsel also submits that if not the
documents, at least the envelope be sent for forensic analysis in order to
ascertain if the seal was broken. Learned counsel for petitioner places
reliance on judgment in the case titled Thiruvengadam Pillai vs
Navaneethammal, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 321.
4. So far as the judicial precedent referred by learned counsel is
concerned, the same would not help the petitioner/plaintiff because it was
held in the said precedent that instead of relying upon personal comparison
of the disputed handwritings, it would be preferable if the trial court gets the
documents forensically examined. That is not the issue in this case.
CM(M) 2150/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569a
f3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
KATHPALIA
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
Digitally Signed cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.12 17:55:31 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:12.11.2025
18:05:08
5. As mentioned above, the apprehension that the documents were
tampered with is mere apprehension. It is not with certainty that the
petitioner/plaintiff would allege tampering of the documents. Merely on
such apprehension, sending the documents to government approved forensic
analyst would unnecessarily protract the suit.
6. It is not unimaginable that when sealed envelopes are stored in
almirahs or racks of Ahlmad rooms, flooded with files, the seal made of lac
does get damaged/cracked. This does not mean that the documents inside it
do not remain safe. As found by the learned trial court during administrative
enquiry, the plastic tape with which the envelope was closed remains intact.
On this aspect, submission of learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff that
atleast the envelope be sent to forensic expert falls completely beyond the
domain of the lis.
7. Most importantly, as observed in the impugned order, the
petitioner/plaintiff had filed photocopied set of same documents and those
were found identical to the original documents taken out of the envelope.
8. Going by the aforesaid, I am unable to find any infirmity, much less
any perversity in the impugned order that would call for intervention of this
court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. The present petition and the accompanying applications are not just
completely devoid of merit but are also totally frivolous, so dismissed with
cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner/plaintiff with DHCLSC
CM(M) 2150/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
Digitally Signed 40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.12 17:55:21 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:12.11.2025
18:05:08
within one week from today.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court to ensure
compliance as regards deposit of cost.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.12 17:55:00 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 12, 2025/ry
CM(M) 2150/2025 Page 4 of 4 pages
