[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sh. Radhey Shyam And Anr vs Suresh Sharma on 19 February, 2026
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th February, 2026
+ CM(M) 110/2023 & CM APPL. 3591/2023
SH. RADHEY SHYAM AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Harshil Gupta and Mr. Satish
Kumar, Advocates (through VC).
versus
SURESH SHARMA .....Respondent
Through Mr. Ishu Arora, Ms. Parul and Ms.
Manisha, Advocates.
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 by the petitioners under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950 ('COI') assailing the order dated 26th
November, 2022, passed by the learned Trial Court in Ex. 260/2018, whereby
the application preferred by the petitioner/judgment debtor under Section 73
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for sending the original receipts of payment
for opinion of a handwriting expert has been dismissed.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has
passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which is
contrary to the material on record. It is contended that the judgment-debtor
had made several payments to the respondent/decree-holder however, the
issued receipts are now being denied by the respondent. It is, therefore,
submitted that in order to determine the exact amount paid by the
judgment-debtor, examination of the said receipts by a handwriting expert is
required.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this
application has been moved only to delay the execution proceedings and to
delay the payment. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has
passed the impugned order after due consideration of the material available
on record.
6. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
"Taking the assistance of section 73 of Indian Evidence
Act, the Court has asked both the JD as well as DH to put
their signature on a piece of paper for perusal of the Court.
The Court, has compared the signatures of both JD and DH
with the admitted signatures which are present on the present
execution petition and various affidavits filed by both the
parties. The signatures of the JD however are matching with
the signatures on the receipt as well as on the signatures
made in the presence of the court. The signatures of the DH
made before the court prima facie match with the signatures
made on the execution petition and the affidavit which are the
admitted signatures but are not similar on the face of it with
the signature present on the alleged receipts. Moreover, the
Court finds it hard to believe that if the payments were
continuously coming to the DH. he had no reason to file the
execution petition. Hence, the application under section 73 of
IE Act seeking directions of the Court for sending the
signatures to the FSL is without merit as the court on bare
perusal of the handwriting has come to the opinion that the
signatures on the receipts are not belonging to the DH. The
application is dismissed being frivollous and devoid of merit
and the JD is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the DH.
Application is accordingly disposed of."
7. The issue as to what amount has been paid by the petitioner to the
respondent can be decided by the execution Court on the basis of the material
available on record.
8. Upon perusal of the record and the observations made by the trial Court
in the impugned order and the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered
view that the present case does not warrant sending the receipts to the
Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL') handwriting expert, as sought by the
judgment-debtor. Accordingly, as the trial court has passed a reasoned order
and the same is upheld.
9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026/v/isk
