IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 62566/2016 (GM-CPC) Between:
Sri. R. Prashanth S/o. Late M. Ramakrishna Aged about 44 years, R/at No. 90, Subbanna Garden, 1st Main, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru 560 040.
(By Sri. L. M. Ramaiah Gowda, Advocate) And:
1. Smt. Bhagyamma W/o. Maruthi Prasad, Aged about 51 years, R/at No.2468, 1084 Batawade Badavane, Valmiki Nagar, Tumkur Town - 572 129.
2. Sri C.M. Rangaiah, Since, dead by his LR’s 2(a) Smt. Jayamma, W/o Late C.M. Rangaiah, Aged about 59 years.
… Petitioner 2(b) Sri Raghavendra C.R., S/o Late C.M. Rangaiah, Aged about 40 years.
2(c) Sri Rangaswamy C.R., S/o Late C.M. Rangaiah, Aged about 35 years.
Respondent Nos.2(a) to (c) are residing at Channarayanadurga, Channarayanadurga Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 129. … Respondents (By Sri Himanand D.C., Advocate for R1; v/o dated 10.02.2017, service of notice to R2 (a to c) are dispensed with) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tumkur on IA filed under Order 26 rule 10 (A) of the CPC in suit O.S. No.107/2006, vide Annexure-J and allow this writ petition and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Plaintiff who is the petitioner herein has assailed the order of the trial Court whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the 1st defendant under Order 26 Rule 10A of CPC referring the signatures of the 2nd defendant in Exs.P.9 and D.1 and to record regarding its genuineness by comparing the same with the signatures of 2nd defendant in the vakalath and written statement filed by the 2nd defendant.
2. It is submitted that the 2nd defendant is stated to have executed an agreement by virtue of which the 1st defendant is enjoying possession in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of the sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant dated 02.12.2004. The 1st defendant had raised a counter claim and sought for specific performance of agreement to sell – Ex.D1 stated to have been executed by 2nd defendant. It is submitted that in light of denial of signatures on Ex.D.1 by the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant, application has been filed in order to prove that the signatures of the 2nd defendant found in Ex.D.1 are that of 2nd defendant by comparing with the signatures of the 2nd defendant contained in the vakalath and written statement which are the admitted signatures. The application has been filed after conclusion of evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order of the trial Court and contends that Ex.D.1 cannot be looked into as it is not properly stamped nor registered. Various other contentions have also been advanced. However, I am of the view that the question as regards the stamping or registration of the documents, is a matter that could still be agitated before the trial Court by the petitioner. It is further to be noticed that the said documents are already marked and till date, no application has been filed seeking impounding of the said documents. It is to be noted that the case of the 1st defendant in the counter claim rests on the proof of Ex.D.1 and in light of denial as made out, the application filed has been rightly allowed by the trial Court.
4. I do not find any infirmity with the order of the trial Court. The trial Court in its discretion taking note of the nature of relief sought for in the counter claim has allowed the application. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
In light of the suit being relating to the year 2006, the trial Court to expedite the trial taking note of the administrative instruction relating to disposal of cases pending for more than ten years.
Sd/- JUDGE VP