[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Smt Jyoti vs Anand Kishore (Deceased) Through Lrs ... on 15 April, 2026
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th April, 2026
+ CM(M) 815/2026, CM APPL. 24108/2026 & CM APPL. 24109/2026
SMT JYOTI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ayyub Ahmad, Advocate along
with petitioner in person.
versus
ANAND KISHORE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER (Oral)
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 09th
March, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS DJ No. 10/2022,
whereby an application under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) read with
Section 151 of CPC, seeking examination of a handwriting expert, has been
dismissed.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Trial Court has
passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which is
against the facts and law. The application has been moved at the stage of
petitioner's evidence. The examination of a handwriting expert is essential for
proper adjudication of the case and the denial of such an opportunity would
cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner.
5. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 09th March, 2026
reads as follows:
"It is seen that the right of the defendant to lead
evidence was closed vide order dated 26.04.2025 and
afterwards the defendant was granted opportunity to lead DE
vide order dated 04.07.2025. The defendant examined herself
as DW1 on 04.08.2025. The defendant further examined DW2
on 14.10.2025. Thereafter again adjournment was sought on
17.11.2025. It was at this belated stage that the defendant
moved the present application on 05.01.2026.
It is seen that even in the replication, which was filed on
25.03.2022 the plaintiffs had categorically stated that their
signatures on the Family Settlement dated 15.02.2014 are
forged and fabricated. PW1 was examined on 06.07.2024 and
PW-2 was examined on 26.09.2024 and both of them again
disputed their signatures on the said Family Settlement.
However, no application for getting the said Family
Settlement examined by a hand writing expert was moved by
the defendant at the earliest available opportunity. It is seen
that the names of the said hand writing experts are not there in
the list of witnesses filed on behalf of the defendant. The
present application has thus been belatedly moved by the
defendant at the fag-end of the trial and no explanation has
been tendered by the defendant as to why the present
application was not moved at the earliest available
opportunity. In case the present application is allowed that
would further delay the trial.
Most importantly, the document Ex. DW1/1 (Ex.
PWI/DX) is stated to be a written deed of family settlement,
however the same is neither stamped nor registered.
Considering these facts and circumstances, I am not
inclined to allow this application for examination of the said
family settlement deed by a handwriting expert at this belated
stage. The application under Section 39 of BSA, 2023 (section
45 of the Indian Evidence Act) is accordingly dismissed."
6. It is evident from the record that the petitioner had sufficient
opportunities to move the application at an earlier stage when the matter was
repeatedly listed for evidence of the petitioner. The application has, however,
been filed after undue delay. Accordingly, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned order which is a well-reasoned order. The petition
is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
APRIL 15, 2026/MR/TP
