Short answer. Yes. Rule 130, Section 17 allows the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering difficult characters, or who understand the relevant language, to be admitted to declare the characters or the meaning of the language when an instrument's characters are difficult to decipher or its language is not understood by the court.
What the law says
When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.
Rule 130, Section 17 — Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. Read the full provision →
Two separate problems this section covers
Section 17 addresses two distinct obstacles to reading an instrument: characters that are difficult to decipher — illegible handwriting or an unfamiliar script, for example — and language the court simply does not understand, such as a document written in a foreign language. Either obstacle, left unaddressed, would functionally exclude a genuinely relevant document from being used simply because the court cannot read it on its own.
Expert or skilled-person testimony as the solution
For either problem, the rule admits the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, to declare what the characters or the language actually mean. This is a recognized channel for bringing specialized decoding or translation skill into the courtroom. This is the same basic function performed by translators and forensic document examiners, and Section 17 gives that kind of testimony an explicit basis for admission.
Why the court needs this bridge
A court cannot properly weigh the contents of a document it cannot read or understand. Section 17 ensures that a genuine barrier of script or language does not simply block the document from being used as evidence — instead, the court can rely on someone qualified to translate or decipher it. Without it, an otherwise reliable document could be shut out of the case entirely for reasons having nothing to do with its actual evidentiary value.
How this fits with the rest of the document's proof
Admitting a skilled person's reading of the characters or language is separate from proving that the document is authentic or that its contents are true. Section 17 addresses only the threshold problem of making the writing intelligible to the court; the party offering the document still has to satisfy whatever other evidentiary requirements apply, such as authentication, before the deciphered or translated content can be given weight as proof of the matters it asserts. Section 17 does not, by itself, vouch for the accuracy of the deciphering or translation offered — it only opens the door to that kind of testimony; the opposing party remains free to cross-examine the skilled witness or present a competing reading of the same characters or language.