Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balaram Meena vs Mohanlal Shivhare on 10 February, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1 of 2
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MP No. 657 of 2022
(BALARAM MEENA Vs MOHANLAL SHIVHARE)
Gwalior, Dated : 10-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner/defendant is before this Court taking exception to the impugned
order dt.21.01.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby the trial court has rejected the application
filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking handwriting expert's opinion on
signatures allegedly appended to pronote.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion
the trial court has allowed similar application filed by the plaintiff for obtaining opinion
of the handwriting expert in respect of the same signature on the pronote. The opinion
procured by the defendant of handwriting expert has been placed on record. Under such
circumstances, the petitioner/defendant is also entitled to obtain handwriting expert's
opinion of the same nature in rebuttal. Such recourse ought to have been adopted by the
trial court ensuring fair trial as within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the
expert's opinion is indeed a relevant fact, which may be taken into consideration by a trial
court while appreciating other evidence placed on record. That has not been done. The
reasoning of the trial court that successive report of handwriting experts is an endless
project suffers from patent illegality and strikes at the root of the fair trial.
Learned counsel submits that either party to a trial has a right to lead evidence in
rebuttal. This is sine gua non of fair play in trial. Learned counsel relies upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Chenram Vs. Banshilal reported in 2017 (3)
MPLJ 592 to bolster his submissions. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the
impugned order suffers from patent illegality and jurisdictional error.
Heard.
Generally this court issues notices to other side while it finds that the impugned
order of the court below is pregnable for the same is polluted with illegality, irregularity
or suffers from the vice of improper or excessive exercise of jurisdiction. However, in the
instant case, this Court is of the view that to avoid delay in trial and ensuring fair play in
trial, it is expedient to dispose of the instant Misc. Petition with directions without
causing any prejudice to the other side.
This Court has carefully perused the impugned order and considered submissions
advanced by Shri Vivek Jain with the help of the order of this Court in the case of
2 of 2
Chenram (supra). It needs no mention that opinion of the experts is relevant fact within
the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Indeed, relevancy of opinion as to
handwriting is to be ascertained as provided for under Section 47 of the Evidence Act and
likewise the Court itself has jurisdiction to take recourse to comparison of signatures,
writing or seal, as the case may be, in the event of dispute in that behalf as contemplated
under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
In the instant case, undisputedly the plaintiff has submitted handwriting expert's
opinion. Obviously, said report shall be relevant fact together with other evidence on
record while the court forms an opinion upon the signatures of the pronote. Under such
circumstances, unless the defendant is also afforded an opportunity to place on record
handwriting expert's report, he may be prejudiced and trial may be classified as vulnerable
to some extent. Such eventuality in the context of the aforesaid factual matrix could have
been avoided if the Court itself had appointed a handwriting expert to obtain the report.
Be that as it may, in the light of the judgment in the case of Chenram (supra) and
the provisions of law referred to, this Court is of the view that the reasoning of the trial
court while dealing with the defendant's application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act
is found to be vulnerable in the eyes of law, hence, can not be countenanced.
Consequently, the conclusion drawn thereupon are found to be erroneous. Therefore, the
impugned order is set aside. It is hereby directed that the trial court shall reconsider the
application of the defendant filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and consider the
same on merits bearing in mind the order passed today and the judgment of this Court in
the case of Chenram (supra), 1n accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, Misc. Petition stands disposed of.
(ROHIT ARYA)
JUDGE
SANJEEV KUMAR
PHANSE
2022.02.11
19:26:25 +05'30'
