Judicial principles and studies
Monetary Claim: Denial of Instrument, Comparison and Handwriting Examination, and Timing Aspects
The study summarizes the court's duty to order comparison and handwriting examination when a party denies a signature on an ordinary instrument, the probative value of a clear expert report, limits on the denier's personal evidence, and the claimant's rights regarding undated instruments.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The study addresses the effect of a party's denial of a signature or handwriting on an ordinary instrument in a monetary claim, and the ensuing obligation to order comparison and handwriting examination upon the instrument-holder's request. It notes that the expert examination may be sought after the denial during trial proceedings and need not have been listed among the original evidence.
Summary
- When a defendant denies a signature or handwriting on an instrument that impacts the dispute, the court must, at the request of the instrument presenter, order comparison and handwriting examination to determine the truth of the denial. - The request is not required to appear in the original evidence list because it arises from the opponent's denial during the proceedings. - A court order for expert examination is lawful when requested by the instrument-presenter after the denial and before the trial is closed, since the examination serves to rebut the opponent's evidence rather than to prove the claim. - A clear, properly conducted expert report that meets legal requirements is admissible and may be relied upon if not legally challenged. - Once the expert establishes the signature, the denier may not introduce personal testimony about the circumstances of the instrument to contradict that finding. - A note lacking a specified due date allows its holder to claim its value at any time without first issuing a judicial notice. - There is no place for directing a decisive oath or additional evidence where the written evidence and expert examination have proved a fact. This content is an educational summary and not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.