[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Prasidha Sharma vs Ramakant Sharma on 20 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2359
1 MP-1776-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1776 of 2025
DR. PRASIDHA SHARMA
Versus
RAMAKANT SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aakash Sharma - Advocate on behalf of Shri Prakash Braru for
petitioner.
Shri Anil Sharma- Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order dated
21.09.2023 passed by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior (M.P.)
in Regular Civil Suit No. 899-A/2022, whereby the Trial Court rejected the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence
Act for obtaining expert opinion regarding the signatures of the executor of
the disputed documents.
2. Briefly, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration,
injunction, and possession in respect of a house purchased by his
grandmother, Smt. Krishna Devi, vide sale deed dated 14.07.1987, claiming
title on the basis of a registered Will dated 07.01.2002. The respondents
denied the Will and claimed ownership on the basis of a Hibbanama dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2359
2 MP-1776-2025
14.02.1988. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner's application under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for examination of disputed signatures
by a handwriting expert was rejected by the Trial Court, giving rise to the
present petition.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the
present petition contending that the order is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to
settled principles of law. It is submitted that since the defendants have denied
the registered Will dated 07.01.2002 and relied upon an unregistered
Hibbanama for the same property, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove
the registered Will, and denial of permission to lead expert evidence under
Section 45 of the Evidence Act deprives him of his valuable right to prove
his case, resulting in denial of fair trial. Reliance has been placed on the
judgments reported in 2012(2) MPHT 19, Komal Singh & Others Vs.
Sembai & Others, 2011(4) MPHT 470, and Asharam & Others Vs. Suraj
Singh Baghel, 2011(1) MPHT 174 (D.B.) . It is further submitted that
examination of signatures/thumb impressions by a handwriting expert is a
scientific process and, as the evidence has not yet commenced, no prejudice
would be caused to the defendants if the application is allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
Miscellaneous Petition and prayed for its dismissal, supporting the impugned
order passed by the Trial Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
available on record.
6. On perusal of the impugned order and the documents available on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2359
3 MP-1776-2025
record, it is found that the Trial Court has rejected the application only on the
ground that this is not the stage to file an application under Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Thus, it is clear that the Trial Court has not totally
rejected the application, but has only observed that at this stage the
application is not maintainable.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court has not
committed any error in passing the impugned order in rejecting the said
application. Therefore, no interference by this Court is called for in this
regard.
8. Accordingly, the misc. petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner
shall be at liberty to file an application under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act as and when such stage or situation arises.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*AVI*
