IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 158 of 2024. Decided on : 10 th March, 2025. Kaushalya Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Yatinder Kumar & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2(a) and 2(b). Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. By way of this petition, order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (2), Shimla in Case bearing registration No. 9004772/18 has been assailed whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking orders of the learned trial Court to get the signatures of defendant No.1 compared with his admitted signatures has been rejected. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3. The dispute in nutshell is that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against the respondents/defendants. It is averred that respondent No.1 has signed the agreement for himself and defendant No.2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has specifically denied his signature on the agreement. 4. The parties have led the evidence. Petitioner is stated to have examined witnesses, who allegedly had seen the execution of the agreement. After completion of entire evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondents contested the application and the same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.08.2024. 5. I have not found any illegality in the order in so far as the prayer made by the petitioners has been rejected. However, it needs to be noticed that Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vests the Court with jurisdiction to seek opinion of an expert, when the Court has to form an opinion as to various matters prescribed in the provision including the handwriting or finger impression of a person. I am of the …2… considered view that the appropriate stage for forming such opinion by the Court can be the one when such Court appreciates evidence led before it. Ignoring such aspect of the matter, the learned trial Court has erred in observing that since the parties have already led the evidence, the Court does not deem necessary to seek opinion from handwriting expert. It amounts to foreclosure of exercise of its jurisdiction by the Court. Such a conclusion can be drawn by the Court only after the appreciation of the entire material on record which I find missing in the instant case. 6. In result, though impugned order is affirmed and the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the Court will not be precluded from forming an opinion as required under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if so required, at appropriate stage of the proceedings. Petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 10th March, 2025. (jai) …3…