Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 45 & 73
A. Reopening of Evidence — Discretion of Court — When Not Permissible
Reopening of evidence after conclusion of trial and when matter is posted for arguments cannot be allowed merely to fill lacunae or to prolong proceedings, especially when party had sufficient earlier opportunity.
(Paras 3, 4, 5, 6)
B. Summoning of Sub-Registrar — Burden of Proof
In a suit for declaration of title, burden lies on the plaintiff to establish validity of documents relied upon. Plaintiff cannot shift burden by seeking summoning of Sub-Registrar at a belated stage.
(Paras 2, 3, 5)
C. Expert Opinion — Section 45 Evidence Act — Not Automatic
Court is empowered under Section 73 Evidence Act to compare disputed signatures.
Expert opinion under Section 45 becomes necessary only when court finds difficulty in comparison.
Belated applications seeking expert opinion to delay trial are liable to be rejected.
(Paras 3(c), 5)
D. Comparison Must Be With Contemporary Documents
Documents sought for comparison must belong to contemporary period; comparison with documents executed decades earlier is unreliable and legally impermissible.
(Paras 3, 5)
E. Abuse of Process — Piecemeal Applications
Repeated applications after trial closure, without new foundation, constitute abuse of process and justify dismissal.
(Paras 3, 4, 5)
FACTUAL MATRIX
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018 | Plaintiffs filed O.S. No.288/2018 seeking declaration of title, possession & demolition |
| Trial | Evidence completed; case posted for arguments |
| 2024 | Plaintiffs filed I.A. 336/2024 — allowed; PW-2 examined |
| 2024 | Plaintiffs again filed I.A. Nos. 476, 477 & 478 of 2024 seeking reopening, summoning Sub-Registrar & expert opinion |
| 21-07-2025 | Trial Court dismissed all IAs |
| 2025 | Plaintiffs filed present Civil Revision Petitions |
| 20-11-2025 | High Court dismissed all CRPs |
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether reopening of evidence after conclusion of trial is justified?
Whether plaintiff can seek summoning of Sub-Registrar at argument stage?
Whether court must necessarily send documents for expert opinion under Section 45?
Whether non-contemporary documents can be used for comparison?
ANALYSIS OF LAW
Reopening of Evidence
Court reiterated that reopening is not a matter of right and cannot be used to patch up deficiencies.
Once adequate opportunity has been given, discretion lies with the trial court to refuse reopening.
(Paras 3–6)
Burden of Proof
In declaratory suits, plaintiff bears burden to prove genuineness of documents relied upon.
Plaintiff cannot shift responsibility to court machinery by belated applications.
(Para 2; Hussain Bin Awaz v. Mittapally Venkataramulu)
Expert Evidence — Section 45 & 73
The Court emphasized:
Court may itself compare disputed signatures under Section 73.
Expert opinion under Section 45 is not mandatory.
Belated request for expert opinion after years of litigation is legally unsustainable.
(Paras 3(c), 5)
Contemporary Documents Rule
Comparison is meaningful only when specimen documents belong to same time period.
Comparison with decades-old documents is unreliable and legally impermissible.
(Paras 3, 5)
Abuse of Process
Repeated piecemeal applications after trial closure were held to be frivolous, aimed at delaying the suit which was pending since 2018.
(Paras 3, 4, 5)
RATIO DECIDENDI
After closure of trial and when matter is ripe for arguments, reopening of evidence and seeking expert opinion cannot be permitted merely to fill lacunae or prolong proceedings; the court may itself compare disputed documents under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, and expert opinion under Section 45 is discretionary, especially when the documents sought for comparison are not of contemporary period.
No comments:
Post a Comment