- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9727 WP No. 6437 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6437 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HARISH. B S/O. LATE N. BALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NAGARBHAVI VILLAGE 1ST PHASE, SEI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560072. 2. SRI.B.MOHAN S/O. LATE N.BALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NAGARBHAVI VILLAGE 1STPHASE, SEI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560072. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. YELLAMMA W/O.LATE N.K.MARAPPA MAJOR 2. SRI.KEMPARAJU S/O.LATE N.K.MARAPPA MAJOR 3. SRI.BYRAPPA S/O.LATE N.K.MARAPPA MAJOR 4. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O.LATE N.K.MARAPPA Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9727 WP No. 6437 of 2025 MAJOR R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT N.K.NAGARBHAVI VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU-NORTH TALUK NAGARBHAVI 1ST PHASE S.E.I.MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560072. 5. SMT. NETHRAVATHI.B D/O.N.BALEGOWDA W/O.LATE NANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.120 ISEC MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI VILLAGE BENGALURU-560072. 6. SMT.PUSHPALATHA D/O.N.BALEGOWDA W/O. LATE HANUMANTHRAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.15 ISEC MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI VILLAGE BENGALURU-560072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE C/R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 04/02/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) DISMISSING I.A.NO.21 FILED UNDER SECTION 73 OF EVIDENCE ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PASSED BY HON’BLE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8), IN OS.NO.836/2014 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9727 WP No. 6437 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-plaintiff No.1(a) and (b) challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, on I.A.No.21 filed under Section 73 of Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.836/2014, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the said application. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 08.04.2005. On service of suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed written statement and denied the signatures on the agreement dated 08.04.2005. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed an application i.e., I.A.No.21 under Section 73 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC praying to obtain in open court the specimen handwriting of defendant No.4 (DW-2) in Kannada including writing his name and initials in English in order to compare the said handwriting with that of the signatures found on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9727 WP No. 6437 of 2025 Agreement of Sale dated 08.04.2005 marked as Ex.P2(d) and other writings as Narasimha Murthy.N.M. in Kannada. The Trial Court by impugned order has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 08.04.2005. The plaintiffs filed application under Section 73 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for a direction to the DW-2 to sign in Kannada to compare the same with that of signature in the Agreement of Sale dated 08.04.2005. If the defendant regularly signs in English, compelling him to sign in Kannada may not be appropriate. If the defendant does not regularly use Kannada for signing, forcing him to do so could lead to an unnatural or disguised signature, making comparison difficult. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9727 WP No. 6437 of 2025 5. Viewed from any angle, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. No good grounds are made out to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners herein to file an application under Section 72(2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 8. In view of dismissal of petition, all pending I.As., if any, are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8