IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.No.10595/2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI.K.N.NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O. LATE PENUGONDA NARAYANAPPA, D. NO.83, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, KRISHNARAJAPURA, BANGALORE-560 036.
(BY SRI.P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. VANAJAKSHAMMA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTS BY HER LR’S 1. SMT. SUVARNAMMA D/O. LATE VANAJAKSHAMMA W/O. NEELAKANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 036 2. SRI. RENUKARADYA S/O. LATE VANAJAKSHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.173, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, KRISHNARAJAPURA, BANGALORE-560 036 ...PETITIONER N. LOKESH S/O. LATE VANAJAKSHAMMA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTS BY HIS LR’S 3. SMT. SHANKARAMMA W/O. LATE N. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. KUM. GOWTHAMI D/O. LATE N. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.173, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, KRISHNARAJAPURA, BANGALORE-560 036 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2016 ON I.A.18 IN O.S.6057/1994 ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH-28) VIDE ANNEX-J.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner being the defendant in O.S.No.6057/1994 filed by the respondents herein for a decree of declaration as to the nature of transaction comprised in the subject conveyance is knocking at the doors of writ court for laying a challenge to the order dated 04.02.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J, whereby the learned trial Judge having favoured respondents’ I.A.No.18 filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 has referred the subject document in question for forensic examination. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, oppose the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the document in question is dated 29.05.1974; on the direction of the trial court, the Indian Security Press has issued a certificate dated 27.09.2013 to the effect that the non-judicial stamp papers of the kind having been first printed on 22.02.1984 were dispatched on 13.03.1984; that being so there was absolutely no reason for sending the said document for forensic examination of the seal put up on the back of the said document at all. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order stating that the same is not vulnerable either in law or on facts; the court below having exercised its discretion according to rules of reason & justice, there is no justification for indulgence of this court in restrictive jurisdiction.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this writ petition needs to be allowed because:
(a) the transaction comprised in the subject document at Ex.P-3 is dated 29.05.1974; the seal on the back of the blank document i.e., stamp paper (non-judicial) is of 10.05.1974; the India Security Press after scrutiny made on the direction of the trial court has specifically stated that the stamp papers of the kind were printed only in February 1984 for the first time; there is no reason to doubt this version coming from a dis-interested official of the Central Government, that too, on the direction made by the trial Court; and, (b) it was not open to the respondents to come up with the said application in I.A.No.18 when the official of the Central Government working in the Security Press, Nasik was examined as a court witness CW-1 on 29.10.2015 and the suit was posted for arguments, having been adjourned part heard; this application was made on 17.12.2015 in a suit of 1994.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; the learned trial Judge is requested to dispose off the suit in an outer limit of three months preferably.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE RU