IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.6041 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT.PUSHPA, W/O H.UPPARE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED TEACHER, SHREE SHARADADEVI HIGH SCHOOL BHURUJINAROPPA, RESIDING BEHIND JMIT COLLEGE, OPP: LAND ARMY OFFICE, VISHWESHAWARAIAH LAYOUT, CHITHRADURGA - 577501. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.VENUGOPAL M.S, ADVOCATE) AND:
B.T.THIPPESWAMY, S/O THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, HEAD MASTER, SHREE SHARADADEVI HIGH SCHOOL BHURUJINAROPPA, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITHRADURGA – 577501. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.RAVI H.K, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:9.1.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HIRIYUR IN O.S.NO.128/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ON IA AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in a suit for damages in O.S.No.128/2009 is grieving before the writ court because of the impugned order dated 09.01.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure – G whereby, the learned Principal Civil Judge, Hiriyur, having rejected her application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 has refused to send the subject document for forensic examination. After service of notice, the respondent/defendant having entered appearance through his counsel, opposes the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
(a) the application of the petitioner seeking forensic examination of the subject document was opposed by the respondent by filing Objections as per Anenxure-Fwherein nothing is whispered about the authenticity of the said document at all; the objection to the application is bereft of material particulars;
(b) ordinarily, when the authenticity of the document is in question, it is unsafe for the Judges to form opinion without the aid of experts view as held by this Court in the Case of SRI CHIKKANNA Vs. SRI LOKESH & OTHERS, ILR 2001 (2) KAR 268; and (c) the objection of the respondent to the request for the forensic examination of the subject document is ununderstandable apart from being preposterous inasmuch as the result of such an examination may turn out to be in favour of the respondent himself, which he can make use of in the suit; even otherwise no prejudice will be caused to any party.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is favoured; impugned order is quashed; petitioner’s application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 of CPC having been favoured, the trial court is directed to take steps for subjecting the said document for forensic examination at his cost.
Since the suit is of the year 2009, the learned trial Judge is requested to try and dispose off the same preferably within an outer limit of six months after the forensic examination report is obtained.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc