Sl.14 01.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 1402 of 2026 Sikha Roy -versus- Subhendu Bhowmick Mr. Indra Nath Mukherjee Mr. Sukanta Mondal ..for the petitioner Mr. Subhashis Saha ..for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the objector and is directed against an order being no.31 dated 30th March, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-2, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) in O.S. No.2 of 2023. By the impugned order the application for appointment of a handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of the testatrix in the will was sought to be compared with the signature as appearing in the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner sometimes in the year 1992. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has disputed the execution of the will and has alleged that the same was manufactured one. He submits that for the purpose of deciding as to whether the will 2 contains the signature of the testatrix, comparison of the signature of the testatrix with that in the gift deed is required to be made. In support of the contention that an expert is to be appointed for the purpose of identification of a handwriting Mr. Mukherjee places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram reported at AIR 1979 SC 14. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the application for appointment of a handwriting expert was filed at the stage of argument. He further submits that the petitioner sought to compare the signature of the testatrix as appearing in the will executed in the year 2011 with that of a signature appearing in the gift deed executed in the year 1992. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pali Ram (supra) 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 3 prosecution case against a person accused of an offence solely on comparison made by himself. 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. However, the question that arises for consideration in the case on hand is how such comparison is to be made. It is not in dispute that the gift deed executed by Usha Rani, since deceased i.e. the testatrix in favour of the petitioner was executed in the year 1992 and the will was executed in the year 2011. The learned trial judge rightly noted that signature of a person can vary with the age and time and only contemporaneous handwriting/signature shall be the basis for comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted one. In the case on hand, this Court finds that there is almost a time gap of about twenty years in between the admitted signature as appearing in the gift deed and that of the will which was executed in the year 2011. That apart, after closure of the evidence of the parties on 2nd March, 2026, the instant application 4 for comparison was made on 17th March, 2026 when the suit was fixed for argument. The application for appointment of a handwriting expert was made at a belated stage. That apart no contemporaneous handwriting/signature admitted or proved has been produced in the case on hand. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for handwriting expert. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Accordingly, C.O. 1402 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)