1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 918 of 2025 1 - Suresh Kumar Pahuja S/o Late Jeevan Lal Pahuja Aged About 53 Years R/o M P Nagar, Korba, P.S. Rampur, P.O. Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Fathers Name Not Mentioned In Lower Court Cause Title) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Vishwa S/o Late Maniram Patel Aged About 62 Years R/o Dadar Khurd, Korba, Tehsil- Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Fathers Name Not Mentioned In Lower Court Cause Title) 2 - Shri Bisheshar S/o Late Maniram Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Dadar Khurd, Korba, Tehsil- Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Fathers Name Not Mentioned In Lower Court Cause Title) 3 - Shri Baleshwar S/o Late Maniram Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Dadar Khurd, Korba, Tehsil- Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence, Fathers Name Not Mentioned In Lower Court Cause Title). ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent 1&3 : None though served. For Respondent No.2 : Shri T.R. Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment reserved on 16.04.2026 Judgment delivered on 21.04.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Second District Judge, Korba, in Civil Suit No.A(DJ- INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.04.21 16:50:29 +0530 2 ADJ)/7/2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 39 and 40 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Order 16 Rule 2(2) CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the plaintiff before trial court. He is prosecuting a civil suit for specific performance of contract dated 30.10.2021. It is pleaded in the plaint that with respect to land bearing Khasra No.500 Area 7 dismil, out of total 10 dismil, was agreed to be sold in favour of plaintiff by the defendants for a total consideration of Rs.26,25,000/- and an agreement was executed on 30.10.2021. Out of total sale consideration, an amount of Rs.10,10,000/- on 30.10.2021, Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.2021 and Rs.20,000/- on 01.11.2021 have been paid to them. Thus, total Rs.10,40,000/-have been paid to the defendants. Despite repeated request when the defendants did not execute the sale deed in his favour and not performed their part of contract, he served a legal notice to the defendants and then he filed the civil suit on 23.11.2022. The defendants, after service of summons upon them, made appearance and filed their written statement. In their written statement though they have not specifically denied execution of agreement dated 30.10.2021, but have pleaded that no advance amount was paid as shown in the agreement and only an assurance was given to the defendants that plaintiff will pay the advance amount. In their written statement they have also pleaded that since the plaintiff has not paid any amount to them, they are not bound to execute the sale deed in his favour. The agreement got executed by the plaintiff by playing fraud which is not acceptable and therefore they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3 3. During pendency of suit, based on the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and the trial court proceeded for recording evidence of the party. After examination of plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant No.2 Visheshar examined himself as DW-1 before the trial court. In his cross examination, he denied the execution of agreement and also denied his signature over the said agreement Ex.P/1. He also denied his signature in every pages of the agreement Ex.P/1. 4. Considering the evidence given by defendant No.1 that the defendants, in written statement, though have not specifically denied execution of agreement and their signature, but in the evidence of defendant No.2 he specifically denied execution of agreement and signature over the agreement Ex.P/1, the plaintiff filed an application under Sections 39 & 40 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam read with Order 16 Rule 2(2) CPC before the trial court on 04.08.2025 for examining the signature of defendant over the agreement Ex.P/1 by handwriting expert. The said application of plaintiff has been rejected by the trial court on 18.08.2025 on the ground that in the written statement, the defendants have admitted execution of agreement and therefore there is no need to get the agreement again examined by handwriting expert. The said order dated 18.08.2025 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although in the written statement the defendants have not specifically denied about execution of agreement and their signature, however, in the cross examination of defendant No.2 he specifically denied execution of agreement and his signature over it. In such a situation, the plaintiff wants to get the agreement examined by handwriting expert to prove 4 the execution of agreement by the defendants. She would further submit that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants as they are having ample opportunity to cross examine the witness of handwriting expert to that effect. Had the defendant No.2 not denied his signature over the agreement, she would not have any cause of action to get the said deed examined by handwriting expert, but in view of his evidence, the examination of deed by the handwriting expert is necessary to prove the execution of agreement in favour of the plaintiff. In support of her submissions, she would rely upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in 2008(4)SCC 530, Thiruvengadam Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal & Another and also 2015 SCC Online Hyd. 799, Mudi Reddy Tirupathi Reddy Vs.T. Linga Reddy and Another. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that it is for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading other evidences that the defendants have executed the agreement in his favour and they failed to perform their part of contract. Even if the agreement is said to be proved that it was executed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for any decree for specific performance of the contract as he himself was negligent and not performed his part of contract. There is no need to send the document for its examination by handwriting expert and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5 8. The claim of the plaintiff in the present case is that the defendants have executed an agreement on 30.10.2021 for sale of 7 dismil of their land in favour of plaintiff and advance amount of Rs.10,10,000/-have been paid on 30.10.2021 and thereafter an amount of Rs.30,000/- were again paid in two installments on 31.10.2021 and 01.11.2021 and thus total amount of Rs.10,40,000/- have been paid as an advance amount to the defendants. The copy of agreement dated 30.10.2021 is also annexed with the petition as Annexure P/2 which has also been perused by this court, in which the payment of advance consideration have been mentioned. In paragraph 2 of plaint (Annexure P/3), the plaintiff has pleaded that : “2. यह कि, प्रतिवादीगण े नाम पर ग्राम- दादरखुद पटवारी हल्ा नंबर 21, राजस्व किनरीक्ष मंडल- ोरबा, हसील एवं जिजला ोरबा (छ.ग.) में खसरा नंबर 500 रबा 0.0400 हेक्टेयर (10 डीसकिमल) भूकिम राजस्व अभिभलेखों में अवस्थिस्. है और प्रतिवादीगण े द्वारा उक्त भूकिम खसरा नंबर 500 े सम्पूण रबे में से रबा 0. 07 एड भूकिम, ु ल किवक्रय मूल्य रम 26,25,000/- रूपये (छब्बीस लाख पच्चीस हजार रूपये) में वादी े पास किवक्रय किये जाने हेु किनवेदन किया गया है। प्रतिवादीगण े उक्त किवक्रय े प्रस्ाव ो वादी े द्वारा स्वीार किया गया और इस ारण से वादी .ा प्रतिवादीगण े मध्य खसरा नंबर 500 े सम्पूण रबे में से रबा 0.07 एड भूकिम, जिजसे आगे सुकिवधा े दृकि?ोण से वाद भूकिम लेख किया जावेंगा, उक्त वाद भूकिम े किवक्रय हेु इरारनामा किदनां 30/10/2021 ो अंतिम रूप से किनष्पाकिद हुआ है।" 9. The defendant filed their written statement on 21.08.2023, however, they denied payment of advance amount and pleaded in paragraph 1 & 2 of written statement that - “1. यह कि, वाद पत्र ी ं तिडा 01 आंभिC रूप से स्वीार है .ा किवक्रय किवलेख ा इरारनामा े आधार पर वादी ने प्रतिवादीगण ो किसी प्रार ा रम अदायगी एडवांC े रूप में नहीं किदया .ा। खसरा नंबर-500 रबा 10 तिडसकिमल भूकिम वास्व में प्रतिवादीगण ी भूकिम है जिजसा लगान वगैरह अदा रे हुए चला आ रहा है। किदनां-30.10.2021 ो अंतिम रूप से ए इरारनामा किनष्पाकिद किया .ा परंु ोई एडवांC नहीं किदया .ा े वल एडवांC ा आश्वासन किदया .ा। 2. यह कि, वाद पत्र ी ं तिडा 02 से 03  ा .न अस्वीार है। खसरा नंबर-500 े संपूण रबे ी भूकिम में से 07 तिडसकिमल भूकिम ा किवक्रय संबंतिध 6 किवक्रय इरारनामा किया .ा ीम भी 26 लाख 25 हजार रूप्ये में ीम य हुआ .ा परंु न ो एडवांC ी राभिC दी गई इरारनामा होे समय प्रतिवादी ो गुमराह रे हुए एडवांC ी राभिC दे रहे हर एडवांC राभिC किदया गया जो 10 हजार, 20 हजार राभिC नहीं किदया गया है इस प्रार से प्रतिवादी ो अभी  वादी गुमराह र रखा है े वल नाममात्र इरारनामा े आधार पर वाद प्रस्ु किया है जो चलने योग्य नहीं है, इसी बीच में अतिधवक्ता े द्वारा नोकिटस भी किदया गया .ा अकिग्रम राभिC न ो दी गई .ी न ो किसी प्रार किवक्रय किवलेख ा रजिजस्ट्री राया, रजिजस्ट्री े समय पैसा दे दूंगा बोला .ा इस प्रार एडवांC राभिC नहीं दी गई और न ही वादी ा रजिजस्ट्री ा भुगान राया और न ही रजिजस्टी राया l” 10. The copy of deposition of defendant No.2 who has been examined before the trial court as DW-1 has also been annexed in the petition as Annexure P/4 & P/5. As per evidence of defendant No.2, in paragraph 11 of his cross examination he stated that ekeys es izLrqr Hkwfe fodz; bdjkjukek fnukad 30-10-2021 ds nksuks istksaa dks fn[kkdj iwNs tkus ij lk{kh us fo’ks’kj iVsy ds uke ds gLrk{kj gksus ls badkj fd;kA Further, in the same paragraph he denied his signature by saying that mDRk nLrkost ds vkosnd ds gLrk{kj ds LFkku ij vius gLrk{kj dks gksus ls badkj fd;k gSA In paragraph 15 of his further cross examination he has stated that ;g dguk xyr gS fd mDr bdjkjukek ds izR;sd i`”B esa esjs gLrk{kj gSA In paragraph 16 also, he denied his signature over the agreement by saying that ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSus vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa lqjs’k ikgwtk }kjk nLrkost esa gLrk{kj ysus dh ckr fy[kh gS tcfd eSa fdlh Hkh nLrkost esa gLrk{kj ugh fd;k FkkA These part of statement gives cause to the plaintiff for filing application under Sections 39 and 40 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Order 16 Rule 2(2) CPC. In paragraph 6 of his application filed by the petitioner on 04.08.2025 he specifically pleaded that since the defendant No.2 denied his signature over the agreement dated 30.10.2021, there is a need to get the said deed examined by handwriting expert. 7 11. Although the trial court is empowered to compare the signature of parties to the suit if occasion arises for its consideration as provided under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (72 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), however, keeping in view the fact that courts are not expert in scientifically examining or comparing the signature of person, the remedy provided under Sections 39 and 40 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam to get the deed examined by handwriting expert. 12. In case of Thiruvengadam Pillai (Supra) in paragraph 16, it has been held as under : “16. While there is no doubt that court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/ signature/finger impression, such comparison by court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is no bar to a court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. The comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the court is in a position to identify the characteristics of finger prints, the court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal.” 13. Similar issue arose in case of Mudi Reddy (Supra) and the High Court for the State of Telangana in paragraph 10,14&15 held as under: 8 “10. Admittedly, the suit has been filed for specific performance in receipt of land, which is covered by the disputed document. The signature on it is alleged to be forged by the respondents. Therefore, the entire suit rests on the question as to whether the disputed document was executed by the respondents or not. The application seeking to refer the document to an expert was filed in April, 2012. It came to be decided in July, 2012. According to the petitioner, it was filed at the stage when D.W. 1's cross-examination was done, but the Court below held that the application was filed after the matter was posted for arguments. Since the Division Bench of this Court in Janachaitanya's case (1 supra) had held that no hard and fast rule controlling the discretion of the Court to send a disputed document or writing for opinion of the expert. I am of the view that the Court below cannot reject it on mere ground that it was filed at that stage. When the entire case rests upon the question whether the disputed document was executed by the respondents or not, in my considered opinion, the Court below is not right, in not referring the said document to an expert. 14.In State v. Pali Ram (6) (1979) 2 SCC 158 the Supreme Court held that although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting, which forms the sheet anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It also observed that it is not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. 15. After considering these decisions and also the decisions in Murali Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (7) (1980) 1 SCC 704; Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar (8) AIR 1964 SC 529; Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (9) (1977) 2 SCC 210 AIR 1977 SC 1091; Vadrevu Annapurnamma v. Vadrevu Bhima Sankara Rao (10) ARI 1960 A.P. 359, this Court in Velaga Sivarama Krishna's case (2) supra, held that expert's opinion is not excluded from the purview of examination and it 9 would help the Court in exercising power of comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It also held in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under; "Whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the Court to compare the signatures or to file an application to send the document to the expert for comparison. When the petitioner opted to file an application to send the document to the handwriting expert, no prejudice will be caused to either party. When he is asserting that the signature is that of the said party, even though there is a gap between the disputed signatures and admitted signatures, a science has been developed to compare such signatures also by taking into consideration the direction of the strokes, the speed of writing, the pattern of writing etc., therefore, it cannot be said that no useful purpose will be served by sending the document to the expert. After comparison, if the similarities of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures are very negligible, then the Court can formulate its opinion with the assistance of the expert's report and by comparing the signatures whether the report has to be accepted or not. But, if the opportunity is denied to the defendant and if the matter is carried to the appellate Court, there is every likelihood of commenting that he did not avail the opportunity of filing an application for sending the document for handwriting expert's opinion, if he is so sure that the disputed signature does not belong to him. In view of the circumstances, I am of the view that it is essential to send the document to the expert for comparison at the request of the party in the interests of justice, which cannot cause any amount of prejudice to the plaintiffs in the present suit, therefore, the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside". 14. In case of The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, 1979 (2) SCC 158, the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 30 as under : “30.The matter can be viewed from another angle, also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of 10 prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence solely on comparison made by himself. It is, therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert.” 15. In the present case by calling handwriting expert’s report after examination of signature of defendants, in the opinion of this court, no prejudice appears to be caused to the parties as they have every right to call the handwriting experts for their cross examination. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court has not exercised its jurisdiction vested in it for calling handwriting expert’s report. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff dated 04.08.2025 under Sections 39 and 40 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Order 16 Rule 2(2) CPC is allowed. The trial court is directed to take necessary steps to get the document Ex.P/1 examined by handwriting expert with the consent of the parties. All the expenditure for examination of documents by a competent handwriting expert shall be borne by the plaintiff. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder