The High Court of Delhi on November 12, 2025, dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s refusal to send sealed documents for forensic analysis, ruling that a “mere apprehension” of tampering is insufficient to warrant such a direction. Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the petition as “completely devoid of merit” and “totally frivolous,” imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner.
The case, Rahul Tyagi vs. Kamlesh & Ors. (CM(M) 2150/2025), involved a challenge to a trial court order dated May 22, 2025, which had dismissed the petitioner/plaintiff’s application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Rahul Tyagi, had filed certain documents, including a Will, General Power of Attorney, and a Possession Letter, in a sealed cover before the trial court.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, pleading that he had a “reasonable apprehension” that these documents had been tampered with. According to the judgment, this apprehension was “based on his observation that at the time of opening of the sealed envelope before the trial court, the seal was found broken.”
The trial court dismissed this application. As noted in the High Court’s order, the trial court had “carried out an administrative enquiry but found nothing to support the allegation of tampering.” The enquiry found that “the plastic tape on the envelope remained intact.” Regarding the cracks in the lac seal, it was reported that “on account of storage of such envelopes in bulk, the same at times does take place due to weight of the files.”
Furthermore, the trial court observed that the petitioner/plaintiff had previously filed a “photocopied set of same documents and those were found identical to the original documents taken out of the envelope.”
Arguments Before the High Court
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner contended that the apprehension of tampering was “not baseless.” It was also submitted that “if not the documents, at least the envelope be sent for forensic analysis in order to ascertain if the seal was broken.”
The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Thiruvengadam Pillai vs Navaneethammal (2008 SCC OnLine SC 321), arguing that the trial court should have ordered a forensic examination.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Girish Kathpalia, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, did not find it a “fit case to even issue notice.”
The Court held that the petitioner’s apprehension was a “mere apprehension” and that “It is not with certainty that the petitioner/plaintiff would allege tampering of the documents.” The Court opined that acting on such grounds “would unnecessarily protract the suit.”
Addressing the petitioner’s concern about the broken seal, the Court observed, “It is not unimaginable that when sealed envelopes are stored in almirahs or racks of Ahlmad rooms, flooded with files, the seal made of lac does get damaged/cracked. This does not mean that the documents inside it do not remain safe.”
The Court heavily relied on the trial court’s administrative enquiry finding that “the plastic tape with which the envelope was closed remains intact.” The petitioner’s submission to send the envelope itself for analysis was described by the Court as falling “completely beyond the domain of the lis.”
Regarding the cited precedent, the High Court found it would “not help the petitioner/plaintiff because it was held in the said precedent that instead of relying upon personal comparison of the disputed handwritings, it would be preferable if the trial court gets the documents forensically examined. That is not the issue in this case.”
The “most important” factor, the Court noted, was the trial court’s observation that the photocopies filed by the petitioner matched the original documents taken from the sealed envelope.
Final Decision
Concluding that there was no “infirmity, much less any perversity in the impugned order,” the High Court declined to intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Justice Kathpalia stated, “The present petition and the accompanying applications are not just completely devoid of merit but are also totally frivolous, so dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-…”
The petitioner was directed to deposit the cost with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within one week. The Court also ordered that a copy of its order be sent to the trial court to ensure compliance regarding the deposit of costs.
