Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Trial Court should not have shut out the case of the petitioner only on the ground that the copies were not originals and it should have left the same to the decision of the expert." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated July, 2026, held that a trial court cannot summarily reject an application to examine a handwriting expert solely on the ground that the signatures to be compared are on photocopies or certified copies.

A bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal observed that as long as the signatures or thumb impressions are apparent on the document, the best evidence available should not be shut out, as the science of identification has attained sufficient exactitude to allow comparison from clear copies.

The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction and possession filed by Satish Kumar Arora (plaintiff) against Pran Nath Arora (defendant) regarding property in Amritsar. During the trial, the defendant moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC to examine a handwriting expert to compare the disputed signatures of the late plaintiff on a compromise deed and several sale deeds. The trial court rejected this application on December 22, 2021, primarily because the originals of the sale deeds were not on record and the compromise deed was only a photocopy.

The primary question before the court was whether a party can be permitted to examine a handwriting expert to compare signatures when the documents available on record are photocopies or certified copies rather than originals. The court was also called upon to determine if the trial court’s rejection of such an application at the evidence stage amounted to an illegal obstruction of a party's right to lead defense evidence.

The High Court began by examining the nature of the documents in question, noting that the petitioner relied upon a compromise deed dated July 5, 2004, and various sale deeds (Ex.D-2 to D-13) which were denied by the legal heirs of the plaintiff during cross-examination. Justice Aggarwal noted that since these documents were essential to the defendant's case, the attempt to establish their authenticity through an expert was a legitimate exercise of the right to defense.

Science Of Identifying Thumb Impressions and Signatures Has Attained Exactitude

The Court placed heavy reliance on the precedent set in Harbans Singh Vs. Jagir Singh (2006) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaspal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1979). It observed that the science of identifying thumb impressions and signatures has reached a level of precision where it "hardly admits of any mistake or doubt." The Court emphasized that a good photocopy produced by modern machines is often sufficient for a categorical expert opinion.

Comparison On Photocopies Permissible If Signatures Are Apparent

Referring to the Dharam Singh Vs. Labh Singh (2017) case, the bench reiterated that the best evidence available with a party cannot be shut out on the "preposterous plea" that a comparison cannot be made on the basis of a photocopy. The Court noted that as long as the ridges of a thumb impression or the strokes of a signature are visible and clear on the photocopy, there is no procedural impediment to allowing such evidence to come on record.

Expert Should Decide If Comparison Is Feasible, Not The Court

The Court clarified that the initial decision regarding whether a comparison can be made from a certified copy or photocopy lies with the expert, not the trial court. It held that the trial court should have permitted the examination and left the technical feasibility to the expert's professional judgment. If the expert finds the copy insufficient, they will state so in their report; if they provide an opinion, it remains subject to cross-examination.

Weight Of Expert Opinion Is Subject To Final Adjudication

Justice Aggarwal observed that it is well known that experts may lean in favor of the parties engaging them, but their opinions are always subject to the scrutiny of the Court. By dismissing the application prematurely, the trial court effectively foreclosed a line of defense without allowing the evidence to be tested. The Court noted that the final decision on the credibility of the expert’s report always rests with the presiding judge at the time of final arguments.

Distinction Between Admissibility At Evidence Stage And Final Merit

The Court distinguished the respondent's reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Balbir Singh Vs. Bhim Singh (2015), noting that the said case involved an appeal against acquittal where the evidence had already been recorded. In the present revision, the expert had not yet been examined. The High Court held that the mere examination of an expert should not be declined at the threshold when the petitioner is seeking to prove their defense in accordance with law.

The High Court concluded that the trial court's order suffered from illegality by shutting out essential defense evidence. Setting aside the order dated December 22, 2021, the Court allowed the revision petition and permitted the petitioner to examine a handwriting expert to compare the signatures of the deceased plaintiff with standard signatures on record.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026