- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26543 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17565 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 26543/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRINIVASA S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION, MALUR TOWN, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130 1A. SMT.KRISHNAVENI N., W/O LATE SRINIVAS M., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NEAR RAILWAY STATION MALUR TOWN, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160 1B. SMT.JYOTHI S., D/O LATE SRINIVAS M., AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NEAR RAILWAY STATION MALUR TOWN, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160 1C. SRI.PRAVEEN S., S/O LATE SRINIVAS M., …PETITIONERS (BY MS.AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 AND: 1. G.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE GULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, MALUR TOWN, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 2. SMT.KITTAMMA W/O MALUR RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMAIAH CRUSHER, SONNAPPANAHALLI POST, BETTA ULSOOR POST, BANGALORE-560 008 3. G.NARAYANASWAMY S/O N.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, MALUR TOWN, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND BABU J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3 R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2017 PASSED ON I.A.XI IN O.S.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALUR AT ANNEXURE-G. IN WP NO. 17565/2017 BETWEEN: SRI G.NARAYANASWAMY S/O N.GOPAL AGED ABOUT YEARS, OLD MASTHI ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION MALUR TOWN ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND BABU J., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 AND: 1. SRI M.SRINIVAS S/O MUNIYAPPA DEAD BY LR’S 1A. SMT.KRISHNAVENI M., W/O LATE M.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NEAR RAILWAY STATION MALUR TOWN, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT 1B. SMT.JYOTHI S., D/O LATE M.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NEAR RAILWAY STATION MALUR TOWN, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT 1C. SRI.PRAVIN S., S/O LATE M.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NEAR RAILWAY STATION MALUR TOWN, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY MS.AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2017 ON I.A.17 MADE BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR IN O.S.93/2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.4/2009 dated 06.06.2017 and in I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.93/2008 dated 25.03.2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, the plaintiffs in both the suits have filed W.P.No.26543/2017 and W.P.No.17565/2017. Both the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4/2009 and O.S.No.93/2008 are before this Court by way of these two writ petitions as the parties are one and the same and the disputes are interrelated. This Court is disposing of these two writ petitions by way of a common order. 2. It is the case that W.P.No.17565/2017 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.93/2008 seeking declaration and recovery of possession. The sole defendant in the suit had filed O.S.No.04/2009 seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.02.1986. In the suit filed by her, the plaintiff in O.S.No.93/2008 is arrayed as defendant No.3 and his vendor is arrayed as defendant No.2 and defendant No.2’s vendor is arrayed as defendant No.1, who is alleged - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 to have executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.04/2009. In O.S.No.93/2008, defendant No.3, who is the plaintiff in the other suit, had filed an I.A.No.17 under Order 26 Rule 10A of CPC to appoint the handwriting expert as court commissioner to compare the signature found in Ex.D10 agreement of sale with the signature found in the sale deed executed by the vendor of the plaintiff. That came to be allowed by order dated 25.03.2017. 3. While allowing the application, the Trial Court had observed that it is well settled principle of law that the Court can compare the disputed signature, but as an abundant caution it has to be referred to the handwriting expert. Further, the applicant is able to establish his case with the assistance of handwriting expert. If the opinion is furnished by the expert, it is only an opinion and not a conclusive proof. The Court should take the assistance of the expert to examine the disputed signature with the other admitted document. Hence, it is very much necessary to send the disputed signature of G. Narayanaswamy found in Ex.D10 as prayed by the applicant along with the signature - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 found in the sale deed executed by G. Narayanaswamy in favour of Kittamma. The Trial Court had allowed that application. Aggrieved by the impugned order in I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.93/2008 dated 25.03.2017, the plaintiff had filed W.P.No.17565/2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff in O.S. No.04/2009 had filed I.A.No.11 under Section 10 of CPC prays to stay O.S.No.4/2009 filed by him seeking specific performance till the receipt of the report from the Court Commissioner in O.S.No.93/2008. That came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by the order impugned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the specific performance suit, submits that the I.A. allowed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.4/2009 whereby the Trial Court had directed the Court Commissioner to compare the signatures on the unregistered sale deed with that of the registered sale deed in the other suit by the plaintiff and as the commissioner's report is awaited, unless and until in her suit, the proceedings are stayed, it would cause lot of prejudice to her. These aspects were not considered by the Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that the reasoning that is given by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 the Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by him is contrary to the settled law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.26543/2017 submits that the relief sought is the specific performance of the sale deed. The relief sought by the respondent in O.S.No.93/2008 is declaration and recovery of possession basing on a registered sale deed. He submits that both the reliefs that are sought are unconnected and the Trial Court had rightly considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed I.A.No.11 filed by the plaintiff seeking stay of all further proceedings. He submits that in his suit allowing an application filed to appoint the court commissioner to compare the signatures on the unregistered sale deed and the registered sale deed also is not permissible and the order passed is contrary to law. He submits that the Trial Court has the power to compare the signatures and that apart the application is filed in 2017 in a suit of the year 2009. He submits that it is nothing but to protract the proceedings. It is submitted that after the plaintiff evidence is completed, the present application came to be filed. The manner in which the defendant in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 O.S.No.93/2008 pursuing the matter shows that only with an intention to drag on the proceedings as they do not have a case on merits, they are filing these kind of applications and submits that the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the same. 6. In response to that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.P.No.17565/2017 submits that right from the beginning it is the specific case that the signatures on the sale deed are forged signatures, but do not belong to the vendor’s vendor though the Trial Court has got the power, the Trial Court is not an expert to compare the signatures as such the Trial Court had rightly referred the matter and directed the commissioner to place a report. If once the report is placed before the Trial Court, it would help the Trial Court to decide the issues between the parties in a more effective manner. It is submitted that there is no illegality with the order impugned. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The suit is for specific performance. This Court had perused the prayer in respect of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 O.S.No.4/2009. The prayer is to direct the respondents to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to the unregistered sale deed dated 25.02.1986 by cancelling the sale deed stood in the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3. The suit is filed in the year 2009. Defendant No.3 in this suit had filed another suit that is O.S.No.93/2008 seeking the declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property and also sought for recovery of possession. In both the matters, the evidence is completed and in O.S.No.93/2008 even the arguments of the plaintiff are completed, the defendants have come up with an application to compare the signatures that too the signatures on the unregistered document and signatures on a registered document. When it is their specific plea that the signatures are forged, it is for defendant No.1 to say whether he has executed or not, when the defendant is a party to the suit. In the suit for declaration, the vendor is not a party and in the other suit the vendor is a party and even in that also when she is seeking cancellation, no such application is filed in the suit filed by them that is O.S.No.4/2009. Now, after the arguments are over they come up with this application in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 the other suit. Both on the latches and not filing an application in the other suit where defendant No.1, who is the vendor is there as a party and when already the written statement is filed, when they are contesting in the suit, the outcome of this would not have any bearing on the other suit and that apart the parties cannot be permitted to come up with these kind of applications. After almost a decade and on the face of it appears that only for the purpose of protracting the proceedings, these kind of applications are filed. The Trial Court ought not to have entertained such an application and even in the entire order, there is no whisper why they have not come up with such an application at an earliest point of time and why the Trial Court had entertained the application. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.93/2008 dated 25.03.2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, is set aside and the W.P.No.17565/2017 is allowed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2346 WP No. 26543 of 2017 C/W WP No. 17565 of 2017 ii. As there are no merits in W.P.No.26543/2017, the same is dismissed confirming the order of the Trial Court. iii. Any of the observations made by this Court while deciding this application shall not be construed as an expression of this court and the Trial Court shall dispose of both the suits within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. iv. The parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. v. All I.As., in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2