The Supreme Court of India, in a bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, has set aside an order of the High Court for the State of Telangana. The apex court held that the High Court, at the revisional stage, erred in allowing an application invoking Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, filed by a defendant after the trial had already concluded in a suit for declaration and injunction.
The matter, Hussain Bin Awaz v. Mittapally Venkataramulu & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13354 of 2025), reached the Supreme Court after the original plaintiff (appellant) challenged the High Court’s final judgment dated August 5, 2024.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a suit for declaration and injunction. In this suit, the defendant filed an application invoking Section 45 (opinions of experts) and Section 73 (comparison of signature, writing, or seal) of the Evidence Act. This application was filed after the conclusion of the trial.
The Trial Court had dismissed the defendant’s application. The defendant challenged this dismissal before the High Court for the State of Telangana in CRP No. 1990/2024. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the Trial Court’s order and allowed the defendant’s application. This decision by the High Court prompted the original plaintiff to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After granting leave, the Supreme Court identified the “short issue for consideration” as “as to whether the High Court, at the revisional stage, ought to have allowed the application… when the trial has already concluded, that too the applicant being the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction.”
The bench held that the High Court had made a mistake in overturning the Trial Court’s decision. “In our considered view, the High Court has committed an error in reversing the order passed by the Trial Court,” the Supreme Court observed.
The Court clarified the legal position regarding the burden of proof in such suits and the specific scope of the invoked provisions. It stated, “In a suit for declaration and injunction, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case.”
Furthermore, the bench defined the correct application of the Evidence Act sections in question, holding: “Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Act, can only be invoked for an admitted document for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting.”
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. “In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment,” the order read.
“Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of the Trial Court is restored,” the Court directed. The bench also made it clear that “all issues are left open.”
The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of by the order dated November 4, 2025.
