While affirming that belated attempts to introduce forensic evidence cannot undo a party’s earlier admissions or revive settled issues, the Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) ruled that since the original plaintiff never disputed the sale deed, her legal heirs could not now seek scientific verification to question its authenticity.
The ruling reiterated that litigation must end when issues are conclusively determined, and courts must resist efforts to reopen trials under the guise of scientific inquiry.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty emphasized that scientific examination cannot be permitted merely on speculative allegations raised belatedly by successors-in-interest. Therefore, the trial court’s order rejecting the application was justified, as the petitioners failed to show any illegality or procedural irregularity.
The Single Judge observed that the timing of the application was crucial, as it was filed when the case had already reached the stage of final arguments, and reiterated that applications seeking expert examination must be made at the earliest possible opportunity, particularly when the authenticity of a document forms a core issue in the dispute.
Once a party has admitted execution of a document either expressly or by conduct, no forensic examination can be ordered to contradict that admission, added the Bench.
The Bench therefore dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking forensic comparison of thumb impressions in a civil suit involving a disputed sale deed, and concluded that no scientific examination could be ordered merely to prolong the litigation.
Briefly, in this case, in an underlying civil suit, the original plaintiff had sought a declaration of title and a permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The defendant, in his written statement, relied upon a registered sale deed to assert ownership over the same property. During the trial, the plaintiff did not deny the execution of the said sale deed and offered no evidence to suggest that the thumb impression on the document was not hers.
However, after the plaintiff’s demise and when the case was posted for final arguments, her legal heirs sought for appointment of a scientific commissioner to compare the thumb impression on the sale deed with the impressions available on the plaint and vakalatnama. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the request was belated and devoid of merit.
Appearances:
Advocate Naveed Ahmed, for the Petitioner
NA, for the Respondent
