IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS. 5925-5927 OF 2017(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT P G MEERA W/O LATE SRI P GURUDEV, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A NO.7/8, 6TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, BALAJI LAYOUT IN BHADRAPPA LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI POST BANGALORE-560094.
(BY SRI. RAJANNA & SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. SRI N MANJUNATH S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O B-9/3, G B LINE I CROSS, COTTON PET BANGALORE-560053 2. SRI K V SATEESH S/O SRI I K VIGNESHWARA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O HARAPPANA HALLI CHIRASRA HALI POST DEVANAGIRI TALUK 3. MR MUNEER AHMMED SHARIFF S/O MR ABDUL WAHAB SAB AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NO.560, MOSQUE COMPLEX NEW BEL ROAD, DEVASANDRA DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560094 4. SRI ZAHEER AHMED S/O BASHA JAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS … PETITIONER R/O NO.605, S S BLOCK HEBBAL BENGALURU-560024.
(BY SRI. MARI GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R4 SERVED; V.C.O DATED 07.08.2018;) … RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ONE PASSED BY THE HON'BLE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DATED 18.10.2016, IN O.S.NO.2494/2007 WHEREIN THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE HAS ALLOWED I.A.NO.9 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CPC I.A.NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND I.A.NO.11 FILED UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF, VIDE ANENX-J.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINMARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner being the defendant in O.S.No.2494/2007 is challenging the order dated 18.10.2016, made by the learned trial judge allowing respondent – plaintiffs applications in I.As. 9 to 11 for reopening of the case and for referring the subject document for forensic examination. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance though their counsel oppose the writ petitions.
2. The authenticity of subject document is in dispute; the authenticity of its executant needs to be ascertained and without such ascertainment the lis cannot be resolved.
3. This Court and the Apex Court in a catena of decisions have consistently held that ordinarily the judge shall not undertake examination of the disputed signature/script in a document on their own sans expert opinion. The impugned order is consistent with the prevalent judicial view.
4. The challenge to the impugned order is preposterous because the examination needs to be done and the forensic examiner may opine this way or that way; once the report comes it is open to the petitioner to object to the same if there are grounds therefor; he may seek leave of the trial Court to cross-examine the said expert witness, if need be.
In the above circumstances, no other ground having been urged, these writ petitions are disposed off without granting indulgence in the matter.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/