Handwriting expert comparison refused where disputed and specimen signatures were separated by a long time gap.

A handwriting expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was found unnecessary where the disputed signatures were said to be of 1995, but the specimen signatures available for comparison were from 2004. The nine-year gap, along with the possibility of variation or disguise in later signatures, made expert comparison unlikely to yield a reliable conclusion. On that basis, the trial court's refusal to send the agreement of sale and receipt for expert examination was held to be justified and was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed agreement of sale and receipt should be sent for examination by a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

Analysis: The dispute concerned signatures said to be of 1995, while the specimen signatures sought to be compared were of 2004, leaving a gap of nearly nine years. In the absence of contemporaneous signatures, and in view of the possibility of variation or disguise in later signatures, expert comparison was considered unlikely to assist in reaching a reliable conclusion. The trial court had therefore refused the request for expert opinion on a proper appreciation of the materials.

Conclusion: The request for sending the documents to a handwriting expert was rightly rejected, and the order refusing the application was upheld.

---