Handwriting expert comparison may proceed despite a long time gap between admitted and disputed writings, subject to judicial discretion.

Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, contemporaneity is relevant for handwriting comparison but not a mandatory precondition. Expert opinion is only advisory, and its weight depends on judicial assessment of the surrounding circumstances, including natural variation, age, health, and the character of the writings. A civil court is therefore not barred from sending disputed handwriting or signature for expert comparison merely because the admitted and disputed writings are separated by a long time gap; the matter remains one of judicial discretion on the facts of each case.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil court is barred from sending disputed handwriting or signature to an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 merely because the admitted and disputed writings are separated by a long time gap.

Analysis: The expert material placed before the Court showed that contemporaneous writings are generally desirable for comparison, but they are not invariably indispensable. Handwriting identification depends on like-with-like comparison, natural variation, the writer's age, health, the nature of the writings, and other surrounding conditions. The Court also noted that expert opinion under Section 45 is advisory, not binding, and that the sufficiency and weight of the opinion remain matters for judicial assessment. On that basis, the Court held that there can be no rigid temporal bar to seeking expert comparison merely because the writings are not contemporaneous, though closer-in-time standards are preferable to assist meaningful comparison.

Conclusion: The civil court is not barred from sending disputed handwriting or signature for expert comparison merely because the time gap between the admitted and disputed writings is long; the decision rests in the Court's judicial discretion on the facts of each case.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contemporaneity is a relevant but not mandatory condition for handwriting comparison, and the Court retains discretion to seek expert opinion despite a long time gap between admitted and disputed writings.

---