IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.5045/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI H.A.SRINIVAS S/O LATE M.C.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O HAGADUR VILLAGE IMMADIHALLI POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560036 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI M.S.NAGARAJA, ADV.] AND:
SRI H.Y.KRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT.THIMMAKKA W/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. SRI SURESH S/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. SRI SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 5. SRI CHANDRU S/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 6. SMT.NANJAMMA D/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 7. SMT.BABY D/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 8. SMT.MUNIRATHNA D/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 9. SMT.NEELAMMA D/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 10. SRI H.K.RAMESH S/O LATE H.Y.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ALL ARE R/O DANAMANDE VINASYAKA NAGARA HAGADURU VILLAGE WHITEFIELD POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560036 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 4TH ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN IA FILED UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.864/2004 DATED 02.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 02.01.2019 passed on I.A. filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.864/2004 on the file of the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.
2. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.864/2004 against the respondents seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract. During the pendency of the said suit proceedings, defendant No.2 filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC seeking expert opinion from Forensic Expert and to assess the age of the stamp paper and the age of the typing on the stamp paper in respect of Ex.P5-the sale agreement dated 18.04.1997 which came to be allowed in part to the extent that the admitted and disputed signatures of the original defendant can be referred to the opinion of the handwriting expert, rejecting the prayer to assess the age of the stamp paper and age of the typing on the stamp paper. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- plaintiff is before this court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order impugned is perfunctory. Though DW-2 has not disputed the signature found on Ex.P5 and Ex.P5(a), the learned Trial Judge erroneously referred the same to the handwriting expert. Indeed signature found on Ex.P5 was admitted by DW-2 during his cross examination as the signature of his father. This aspect has been totally ignored by the Trial Court. The Trial Court proceeded to pass the order impugned without appreciating the relevancy of expert opinion and no circumstances warranting such an opinion.
4. In the suit for specific performance of contract, the execution of sale agreement dated 18.4.1997 is disputed by the defendants. In view of the same, in order to discern the truth, to meet the ends of justice and to take a decision in the matter, expert opinion relating to the disputed signature of defendant with the admitted signature is referred to the opinion of the handwriting expert by the Trial Court. In the circumstances, no perversity or illegality is found in the order impugned.
Writ petition is bereft of merits and stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: