- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8867 WP No. 602 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 602 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VEENA SRINIVAS D/O LATE M.T. NARAYANA GOWDA W/O S.A SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS DULY REPRESENTED BY G.P.A HOLDER S.A SRINIVAS S/O LATE S.V. ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO. 6, KANCHI, 2ND FLOOR 4TH MAIN ROAD JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BENGALURU -560046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S DORE RAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUJAISHREE SUMANTH, D/O LATE M.T. NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO. 503, 6TH FLOOR BRINDAVAN APARTMENTS, NO. 100 BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560019. 2. SMT. VANITHA GOWDA M.N. D/O LATE M.T. NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.6,KANCHI, 1STFLOOR,4TH MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8867 WP No. 602 of 2025 JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BENGALURU – 560046. 3. M/S SIXTH ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S NEUREOL TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ) NO.62, SRI. VARADA 10TH MAIN ROAD HMT LAYOUT R.T NAGAR BENGALURU-560032 REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. M.S. SIVASANKARAN. …RESPONDENTS (SRI. C.K.NANDA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHIVARAMAKRISHNAN M.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3: NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 20.01.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED: 07.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.16 AND 17 (ANNEXURE-A) IN COM.O.S.NO.1809/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-89) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Com.O.S.No. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8867 WP No. 602 of 2025 1809/2022, whereby, IA Nos.16 and 17 filed by defendant No.3 were allowed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. On service of summons, defendant No.3 appeared through counsel and filed the written statement and also filed an application under Section 72 of the Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short, ‘BSA, 2023’) seeking for comparing signature of the plaintiff in the memorandum of plaint at page Nos. 1 to 12 and verifying affidavit at page No.14 and signature of the plaintiff at page Nos. 13, 13A of the plaint and on the statement of truth. The trial court, by the impugned order allowed the applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 3. Sri S.Dore Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and verifying affidavit and other documents sought to be compared, is the signature of the plaintiff herself as she has filed objection to the application - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8867 WP No. 602 of 2025 herself and stated that all the signature belongs to her. When the plaintiff herself has not disputed her signature, referring the signature of the plaintiff for comparing with the other documents is not necessary. In support of his contentions, he relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18331/2024 disposed of on 22.07.2024 and Delhi High Court in the case of RAJESH WADHAWAN vs. SH NAVEEN SABHARWAL (CM(M) 1297/2023, CM APPL.41520/2023 disposed of on 01.08.2024 and another judgment in the case of NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD. Vs. B.N.CHADHA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 4. Per contra, Sri C.K.Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/defendant contended that the signature of the plaintiff which was sought to be compared are on the crucial documents. These documents necessarily has been signed by the parties. If any defect is found in that, the suit itself has to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8867 WP No. 602 of 2025 be dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, the trial court has rightly allowed the applications. 5. He further submitted that, during the pendency of this writ petition, now a report is already obtained and submitted to the court and it is kept in the safe custody. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 7. The respondent No.3/defendant No.3 has raised an objection by filing an application under Section 72 of the BSA, 2023, seeking comparing signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and other documents on the ground that these are all crucial documents and the signature found on the documents are not of the plaintiff. The further case of the defendant No.3 is that, to confront the documents to the plaintiff, he is not entering the witness box. The plaintiff has been represented by a GPA holder. Therefore, these are all the crucial documents, these have to be verified by a handwriting expert. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8867 WP No. 602 of 2025 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that when the plaintiff herself has admitted before the Court that it is her signature and it is not necessary for verification. He also contended that the defendant No.3, just to drag the matter has filed these applications. 9. Be that as it may. Pursuant to the order passed by the trial court, now that the report has already been obtained and submitted before the court. This will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter. All the contentions of the parties are left open. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52