Trial Court Cannot Refuse Handwriting Expert Merely Because Disputed Signatures Appear on Certified Copies; Admissibility and Evidentiary Value Are Matters for Trial; Trial Court Cannot Shut Out Expert Evidence at Threshold: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Pran Nath Arora v. Satish Kumar Arora (since deceased) through LRs and Others

Date of Judgment: 01 July 2026

Citation: CR-278 of 2022

Bench: Justice Vikram Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a trial court cannot reject an application for examination of a handwriting expert merely because the disputed signatures appear on certified copies or photocopies of documents. Whether comparison can effectively be undertaken from such copies is a matter falling within the expert’s domain, while the ultimate appreciation of the expert’s opinion rests exclusively with the Court. The admissibility, reliability and evidentiary value of the expert’s report are issues to be examined during trial and cannot be prejudged at the stage of permitting expert evidence.

Summary: The revision petition arose from an order whereby the Trial Court rejected the defendant’s application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine a handwriting expert for comparing the signatures of the deceased plaintiff appearing on various documents, including a compromise deed and certified copies of sale deeds relied upon by the parties.

The defendant asserted that during cross-examination, the plaintiff’s legal representative had denied the deceased plaintiff’s signatures on the compromise deed as well as other documents which formed an important part of the defence. It was, therefore, contended that examination of a handwriting expert was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute.

The Trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the documents available on record were only certified copies or photocopies and that comparison of signatures on such copies was impermissible. It also observed that the original compromise deed was not available before the Court.

Setting aside the order, the High Court held that the Trial Court had prematurely assumed the role of an expert by itself concluding that comparison was legally or scientifically impossible. Whether a certified copy or photocopy is capable of supporting handwriting comparison depends upon the quality of the document and the opinion of the handwriting expert, not upon the Trial Court’s own assumption at the threshold.

The Court observed that where certified copies have already been proved on record and the original document is available in another judicial file capable of being requisitioned, the opportunity to lead expert evidence ought not to be denied merely because the documents presently before the Court are not originals. If the expert ultimately finds that comparison cannot be scientifically undertaken from the available copies, the opinion may carry little or no evidentiary value; however, that is fundamentally different from refusing permission to examine the expert altogether.

The High Court further reiterated that expert evidence is only an opinion evidence and is never conclusive. It remains subject to cross-examination, rebuttal by the opposite party and independent judicial evaluation. Consequently, permitting examination of a handwriting expert does not prejudice the opposite party, since the Court retains the final authority to determine the evidentiary worth of the expert’s opinion.

Relying upon its earlier decisions in Dharam Singh v. Labh Singh and Harbans Singh v. Jagir Singh, the Court reaffirmed that advances in forensic science and document examination cannot be ignored, and where an expert expresses the ability to undertake comparison from certified copies or photocopies, the best available evidence should ordinarily be allowed to come on record rather than being excluded at the threshold.

Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC and permitted the petitioner to examine a handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the deceased plaintiff in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the admissibility, reliability and evidentiary value of the expert’s opinion would ultimately be determined by the Trial Court during appreciation of evidence.