Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupesh Agrawal vs S M Chaudhary on 9 May, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 09th OF MAY, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.5168/2023
BHUPESH AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER
Versus
S.M. CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER
...................................................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neerja Agrawal, Advocate for
petitioners.
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondents.
..............................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the
petitioners/defendants challenging the order dtd. 07.08.2023 passed by 1st
Civil Judge Junior Division, Satna in RCS No.42A/2014 whereby in the
suit simplicitor for permanent injunction, trial Court has dismissed
petitioners/defendants’ application under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
2. In a suit for permanent injunction, the respondents/plaintiffs have
prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants claiming
themselves to be in possession of shop no. 5 & 6 of Keerti Bazar,
2 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
Semariya Chowk, Satna and in turn the petitioners/defendants by filing
separate written statements claimed themselves to be in possession of
shop no. 5,6,7 and 8 of Keerti Bazar, Semariya Chowk, Satna on the
premise of Memorandam of Understanding (in short “the MOU”) dtd.
28.04.1995 (Annexure P/4).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the matter
came before this Court and finding the MOU dtd. 28.04.1995 (Annexure
P/4) to be a relevant and necessary document, a coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dtd. 24.02.2021 passed in W.P. No.11848/2017,
permitted the petitioners to lead secondary evidence in respect of the
MOU, which has already been marked as Ex.D/1 but when by
confronting the said document, a question was asked to the plaintiff 1, he
denied from his signature on it. He submits that as the MOU is a main
document of defence of the defendants and as the plaintiff 1 has denied
his signature on it, therefore, the same deserves to be examined by
handwriting expert and trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting
the application on the sole ground of it to be a photocopy. Placing
reliance on the decisions of coordinate benches of Punjab and Haryana
High Court in the case of Dharam Singh vs. Labh Singh and others, 2017
SCC OnLine P&H 3587; and Jasbir Singh vs. Charanjit Singh and
others in C.R. No. 2047-2018 (O&M) decided on 08.08.2022, learned
3 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
counsel submits that prayer for examination of handwriting by expert in
respect of signature on photocopy is permissible and cannot be rejected
only on the ground that the document is a photocopy. With these
submissions he prays for allowing the miscellaneous petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supports
the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the miscellaneous petition
with the sole submission that expert opinion in respect of a photocopy of
a document MOU is not permissible and trial Court has not committed
any illegality in dismissing the application. In support of his submissions,
he placed reliance on the decisions of coordinate Benches of this Court in
the case of Mahesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRR
No.443/2014 decided on 16.11.2015 (at Jabalpur); Aneesh Kumar
Dhakre and anr. v. Dauli Bai and others, 2016 (2) RN 152; and Abhay
Jain and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2018 SCC
OnLine MP 1839. With these submissions he prays for dismissing the
misc. petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Undisputedly in the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction, the
defendants have taken defence on the basis of MOU dtd.28.04.1995
(Annexure P/4) and previously the defendants were permitted to lead
secondary evidence in respect of the MOU by this Court vide order dtd.
4 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
24.02.2021 passed in W.P. No. 11848/2017 and expert opinion has been
prayed in respect of photocopy of the MOU. So, in the present case only
question involved is, as to whether expert opinion can be sought on the
basis of photocopy of a document, which is a disputed document amongst
the parties.
7. Identical controversy came earlier before this Court in three cases
and coordinate benches of this Court held that expert opinion cannot be
sought on the basis of photocopy of a document.
(i) In the case of Mahesh (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court
held as under:-
“The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the document which was
photocopy of the original cannot be sent for opinion to the handwriting expert.
Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1872 reads as under:-
“45. Opinions of experts- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point
of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger
impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such
foreign law, science or art, [or in question as to identity of handwriting] [or
finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.”
For the purpose of summoning report of expert, it is necessary that document must be
original because the petitioner submitted the photocopy of the document hence, in my
opinion the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. However,
if there is some original document available with the petitioner which was written by
the deceased, the petitioner can very well submit an application before the Court for
calling the report of handwriting expert.”
(ii) In the case of Aneesh Kumar Dhakre (supra), a coordinate
Bench of this Court held as under:-
“10. Learned trial Court has held that except affidavit (Ex.D-1), other documents,
namely Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 are not original documents, therefore, in terms of
the provisions contained in section 45 of the Evidence Act only Ex.D-1 can be
admitted for the opinion of an expert. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
5 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023submitted that learned trial Court has erred in not accepting the documents Ex.D-2,
Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 on the ground that their originals were not filed and are not on
record.
11. There is no denial to the fact that documents Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 are not
in original and also to the finding of the learned trial Court that as per the provisions
of law, an expert can examine the handwriting and thumb impression only from the
original documents. It is admitted position that Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 are the
certified copies and not the original documents. It is seen that petitioners did not make
any attempt to move an application before the Court for production of original
documents from which certified copies of Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 have been
issued, and therefore, in absence of original documents before the learned trial Court,
the trial Court was right in rejecting the application under section 45 of the Evidence
Act for examination of handwriting/thumb impression on the documents Ex.D-2,
Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4.”
(iii) Similarly in the case of Abhay Jain (supra), another coordinate
Bench of this Court held as under:-
“45.While considering the question as to whether hand writing expert can give
opinion on the basis of photocopy, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh replied
in Bheri Nageswara Rao v. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao and Ors AIR 2006 AP 314 that:
5. The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the analysis of the slant,
which a person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some cases,
the point of time, at which it may have been subscribed. These analyses
would become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature; and the signature
mark on a xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis.
46.In the case of Paramesh Chandra Sen (Deceased) and Anr. Vs. Sanjukta Mukherjee
AIR 2017 Cal 254 the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view.
47.Even otherwise opinion of handwriting or finger print expert is a weak type of
evidence. Hon’ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the probative value
of opinion of the hand writing expert and as to what weightage should be given to it,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined in S.P.S. Rathore v. C.B.I. and Anr. reported in
AIR 2016 SC 4486 that evidence of handwriting expert is only opinion evidence and
not conclusive. It cannot be relied upon, unless corroborated by clear direct evidence
or by circumstantial evidence. It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand
writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be
relied upon either for conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be
wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if
ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is
usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence.
48.Thus, the law is clear that the opinion of handwriting expert is relevant but not
conclusive. It is a fragile type of evidence. It is only corroborative evidence. It’s
probative value is that only on the basis of expert opinion no conclusion can be drawn
if there is no other supportive evidence. It is to be accepted with good amount of
circumspection.
6 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
49.It is also clear that it cannot be ascertained as to whether the testator signed the
Will or not only on the basis of expert opinion based on photocopies of the Will and if
it cannot be established, there is no reason to prosecute the accused persons.
50.Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgement passed
by co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Narayandas vs. Smt. Sushiladevi and
others passed in MCRC No.8080/2014. In this case the learned Court has framed the
question for consideration that “whether the handwriting expert’s report based on
photocopy of the disputed document cannot be considered as an evidence?” In this
case reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in Bheri Nageswara Rao (supra)
in which it is held that report of expert based on photocopy of document cannot be
relied upon; therefore, this judgement is of no assistance for the Respondents.
51.In the case in hand, the handwriting or the finger print experts have not made any
efforts to get the photographs from the original Will even when the same was easily
available in the civil suit filed by Respondent No.2 himself, therefore, the
comparative signatures on the photocopy of a document, does not become a reliable
source of comparison with the disputed signature or thumb impression. The opinion
of the experts based on examination on photocopy is not in accordance with the
science of handwriting examination. Therefore, in my opinion, the reports and expert
opinions cannot be given weightage and are liable to be rejected on this point itself.
Conviction cannot be made solely on the basis of such reports. Further, no other
corroboration of these reports is available in the record and in that situation no other
result but the acquittal can be recorded. Therefore, prosecution of the petitioners on
such basis is nothing but an abuse of process of law.”
8. Upon arising similar controversy, a coordinate Bench of Delhi
High Court in the case of Narender Kumar vs. The Mgmt. of M/s Maman
Chand Ramji Das, 2023 0 Supreme (Del) 1844 = 2023(3) AD(Del) 282,
followed the decision of this Court in the case of Abhay Jain (supra) &
held as under :
“31. It is pertinent to refer the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in Abhay Jain v. State of M.P. reported as 2018 SCC OnLine MP
1839 wherein it was observed that examination carried out by an expert must be
based upon the original document, rather than examining the xerox copy of the same.
“29. The expert should form opinion on the basis of study of original
document. The reason being that the pressure points are analyzed by the hand
writing expert for which original are required. In the absence of original
documents, the analysis of a questioned document is limited to the features
that survive the copying process. This is like to identify a person behind a
cloudy window; the basics are there, but details are missing. What we call the
“three-dimensionality” of the original document is lost. Not to mention that if
the copy is a copy of a copy, the details become increasingly difficult to
verify.
7 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
…..
44. Originals are always the best evidence. For a more productive result, both
questioned and admitted documents should be in original.
45. While considering the question as to whether hand writing expert can give
opinion on the basis of photocopy, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
replied in Bheri Nageswara Rao v. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao, AIR 2006 AP
314 that:
“5. The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the analysis of the
slant, which a person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and
in some cases, the point of time, at which it may have been
subscribed. These analyses would become possible only vis-a-vis an
original signature; and the signature mark on a xerox copy of a
document can never constitute the basis.”
32. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. CBI reported as (2017) 5
SCC 817 touched upon the issue of reliability of the expert opinion in handwriting
dispute matters. Relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as below:
“47. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant-accused that the signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the memorandum
were forged though she signed the same in front of Shri Anand Prakash, Shri
S.C. Girhotra, Ms Aradhana and Mrs Madhu Prakash and they have admitted
the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to handwriting is only
opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. Acting on the evidence of
any expert, it is usually to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear,
direct or circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a handwriting expert
is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing
being of a certain person or not. A court is competent to compare the disputed
writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his
writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person’s
writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a
court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other
evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting
expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too
is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena of cases that
the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for
recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not.
It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined
in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It is opinion evidence and
it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on
such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence.”
33. In view of the aforementioned judgments, it can be deduced that the report of the
handwriting expert remains questionable and unreliable since the same is based on the
examination carried upon xerox documents. Ergo, this court is hesitant to accept the
expert opinion and to form an opinion solely and primarily on basis of the report. As
discussed in detail in Abhay Jain (supra), that level of certainty of an expert opinion is
adversely affected when the examination is done on copies of the original. Reasons
and factors like loss of detailing, patching, fraudulent manipulation, paper etc. cannot
8 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
be properly assessed and examined by the expert when only xerox copy is available to
him/her. This Court holds the expert opinion/report as an unreliable source of
comparison and hereby attaches no evidentiary value to the same in the present
dispute.”
(ii) The same view was taken by another coordinate Bench of Delhi
High Court in the case of Sunayna Sabharwal and another vs. State NCT
of Delhi and others, 2024 SCC Online Del 6841 and held as under:-
“15. The petitioner has claimed that this official illustration does not bear her
signatures. However, the onus was on her to prove that the signatures were forged. In
the absence of the original documents, the Court could not have given any finding by
comparing the signatures on photocopy with her original signatures. It is settled law
that unless there are signatures in the original, the comparison is inevitably not
possible on the basis of vague, faint or photocopied signatures. The learned M.M. has,
therefore, rightly observed that there was no cogent evidence led to prove that the
official illustration had her forged signatures. Additionally, no endeavour whatsoever
had been made by the petitioners to summon the originals to be placed on record. It
has been rightly concluded that no offence is disclosed from the evidence led by the
petitioner.”
9. Similar controversy arose before coordinate Benches of Andhra
Pradesh High Court. Then firstly in the case of Bheri Nageswara Rao vs.
Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao, AIR 2006 AP 314, the Court held as under :-
“5. The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the analysis of the slant, which a
person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of time,
at which it may have been subscribed. These analyses would become possible only
vis-a-vis an original signature; and the signature mark on a xerox copy of a document
can never constitute the basis.
6. It is rather surprising that the trial Court did not undertake any discussion, worth its
name, and simply allowed the application. Except that the trial Court named the hand
writing expert, it did not add a word, touching on the merits or demerits of the matter.
The order reads as under :
“Heard. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall be allowed to
send Ex.P.13 and P.15 to Mr. Ashok Kashyap for examination with admitted
and specimen signatures of first respondent.”
The trial Court ought to have exhibited little more attention to the matter.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the order
under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 1387 of 2005 shall stand
dismissed. It is made clear that in case, respondents 1 to 3 are in possession of any
9 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
original documents of Exs. B.13 and B.15, it shall be open to them to renew the
request. Since the suit is of the year 1999, it cannot brook any further delay. The trial
Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same, within a period of one (1) month, from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”
(ii) In another decision a coordinate Bench of Andhra Pradesh High
Court, in the case of T. Lakshmi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 SCC
Online AP 3670, held as under :-
“18. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that, comparison of signature of the
Tahsildar on the Photostat copy of the patta with the signature of the Tahsildar in the
D.K. Registrer physically by the second respondent without affording any opportunity
is a serious illegality. A finding is recorded by the second respondent that, on
comparison of the signature of the Tahsildar on Photostat copy of the patta with the
signature of Tahsildar in D.K. Register, they are not tallying with each other. Such
power to compare the admitted signature with the disputed signature is conferred on
the Court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, but not on the administrative
authorities. In addition to that, a Photostat copy is a copy taken from mechanical
process. If the entries are shown accurately as in the original patta, there is a
possibility of arriving at such conclusion. But, the mechanical process does not
show the accuracy on account of blurred signatures/defective photo copying.
Therefore, such comparison is impermissible under law, as there is every
possibility of change of signatures due to passage of time and there is every
possibility to sign on the documents in disguise, so as to obtain a favourable
opinion from the handwriting expert. But, what is required as per law is that, any
authentic contemporaneous document containing signatures of the parties has to be
referred along with the disputed signatures for comparison and opinion.”
10. Recently, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has also, in the
case of Deeplok Financial Services Limited vs. Tata Iron & Steel
Company and Others, 2025 SCC Online Cal 3314, taken the same view
as under :-
“28. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 5-series has argued that since the
plaintiff relied on a photocopy of a transfer deed, the falsity of the signatures thereof
ought to have been proved by the plaintiff by calling for experts. However, such
contention cannot be accepted, since a photocopy cannot be the premise of
comparison of signatures. Since the purported deed of transfer stood in favour of the
predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no. 5-series, it was the incumbent duty of the
said respondents to prove the execution of the same by calling for proper witnesses
and/or at least to call authorised persons from the defendant no. 2/registry to
10 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023substantiate that the specimen signature of the Directors of the appellant-Company
lying in the records of the defendant no. 2 were compared with the purported
signatures on the transfer deed(s).”
11. A coordinate Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court also, in the
case of Gurdial Singh vs. Dalveer Kaur, AIR 2019 P&H 66, had taken
the same view and held as under:-
“17. Another reason for non-suiting of the plaintiff was that though the plaintiff had
examined a document expert but since he had compared the alleged signatures of the
defendant from the photostat copy with the standard signatures, the same could not be
done. The relevant authorities in that regard cited by learned counsel for the parties
have been discussed. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that no reliance
can be placed upon the report of document expert since the signatures could not be
compared from the photostat copy.”
It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Gurdial Singh
(supra), the Court has also distinguished the decision given in the case of
Harbans Singh v. Jagir Singh, 2006 (1) PLJ 84, on the basis of which
another coordinate Bench of same High Court had given the decision in
the case of Dharam Singh v. Labh Singh and others (supra). Apparently,
the decision in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) is in same line, in which
the decision was rendered in the case of Dharam Singh (supra). As such,
both the decisions do not provide any help to the petitioners.
12. Although in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra),
two coordinate Benches of Punjab and Haryana High Court, have held
that photocopy of a document can be subjected to expert opinion, if the
signatures/thumb impressions appearing on the document are apparent,
11 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023
but in both the decisions, aforementioned previous decisions were not
taken into consideration. At the same time it is pertinent to mention here
that concurrent view of this Court as well as of Delhi, Andhra Pradesh,
Calcutta and even of Punjab and Haryana High Court is that, expert
opinion cannot be sought on the basis of photocopy of a document.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in
the impugned order passed by trial Court dismissing the
petitioners/defendants’ application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act
seeking permission of expert opinion in respect of photocopy of the
MOU.
14. Resultantly, miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
15. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Date: 2025.05.13 18:56:23 +05’30’