IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.10480 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGAN S/O SRI MUNISWAMY NATAR, AGED 64 YEARS, R/A NO. 13, GARUDACHARPALYA, PAPAYYA REDDY EXTN., MAHADEVAPURA EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 048.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.A.DEVANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SRI. SURESH S/O SAMPANGI, AGED 36 YEARS GARUDACHARPALYA, NEAR POST OFFICE, WHITEFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 048.
2 . SRI R.ARUN S/O RAMANJI, 1ST CROSS, GARUDACHARPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 048.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W V/O DTD 7/12/2018) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED XXXVII ADDL. CITY AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE PASSED ON 3.2.2017 IN O.S.NO.9241/2007, ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10-A AT ANNEXURE-F BY ALLOWING THIS W.P.; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in a declaration suit in O.S.No.9241/2007 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 03.02.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F, whereby his application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 A of CPC, 1908, having been rejected, the learned XXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has refused to send the subject document for forensic examination.
2. After service of notice the first respondent- defendant having entered appearance through his counsel opposes the writ petition and the notice to respondent No.2 having been dispensed with.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, relief needs to be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as:
(a) the suit is for a declaration of title which is founded on a conveyance executed by the alleged attorney; the petitioner-plaintiff has specifically pleaded as to the transaction being fraudulent and the document in question being fabricated; this averment is contested by filing the Written Statement; thus an issue eminently arises as to the genuineness of the document in question; and, (b) it is the consistent view of this Court that ordinarily, the Court shall not on its own take up examination of the script or the signatures appearing on disputed documents without the aid of an expert opinion; if the subject document is examined by a forensic expert, his report becomes handy for consideration of the issues; this apaprt, the report would not cause any prejudice to any of the parties especially when they have a right object to the contents of the report after it is filed.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; impugned order having been set at naught, the petitioner’s subject application is allowed, and the trial Court shall take all steps to send the subject document for forensic examination at the cost of the petitioner in a time bound manner.
It is needless to mention that if the report goes adverse to the interest of the first respondent herein, he may file his Objections thereto, which the Court below shall consider objectively.
The learned trial Judge shall accomplish the entire exercise within a period of three months.
All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS