- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21821 W.P. No.11076/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.11076/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.N. MANJUNATHA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O BYRANDAHALLY VILLAGE VEMAGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK-563101 KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HARSHITHAMANI, ADV., FOR SRI. VASANTH KUMAR K.M. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. K.M. RAJEGOWDA S/O M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O KAMANDAHALLY VILLAGE KYALANUR POST, KOLAR TALUK-563101. 2. SMT. VIMALAMMA D/O LATE M. NARAYANAPPA W/O SRI. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O CHELUVANAHALLY VILLAGE ARABIKOTHANUR POST, KOLAR TALUK-563101. 3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE M. NARAYANAPPA W/O BYREDDY ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R.O VEMAGAL VILLAGE & POST KOLAR TALUK-563101. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21821 W.P. No.11076/2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 21.02.2019 MADE ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 8 OF C.P.C. R/W SEC.151 OF C.P.C. IN O.S.NO.91/2017 PASSED BY THE IST ADDL SR. CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE VIDE ANNX-H & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the order dated 21.2.2019 made on I.A.filed under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC r/w Sec.151 of CPC in O.S.No.91/2017 passed by the 1st Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Kolar, being arbitrary, erroneous and opposed to law, equity and justice (Annexure-H). ii) Allow I.A. filed by the petitioner herein under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC r/w Sec.151 of CPC in O.S.No.91/2017 pending on the file of 1st Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Kolar in the terms prayed for therein. 2. Heard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21821 W.P. No.11076/2019 3. Smt.Harshithamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed O.S. No.91/2017 seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016 executed by one late M.Narayananappa, father of the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents have filed written statement denying the execution of sale deed, more particularly the signature of late M.Narayanappa. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to issue notice to the Range Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Kolar, to produce the resolution book of the Village Forest Committee of Kamandahally Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, for comparison of the signature of late M.Narayananappa, who was one of the Directors of the said Committee with the signature found in the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016. However, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the said application on the ground that the documents at Exs.P8 and P9 which are also marked as Exs.D8 and D9 are available on record for comparison and securing such record is unnecessary. The finding of the Trial Court that the Village Forest Committee does not seem to be a statutory body that obeys the rules and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21821 W.P. No.11076/2019 regulations, is factually incorrect as the Committee has been constituted under Section 6 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayatraj Act, 1993. Admittedly, late M.Narayananappa, who is one of the Directors of the said Committee has signed the resolutions and thus, the admitted signature of late M.Narayanappa is required to be sent for expert's opinion so that it aids the parties to settle the dispute. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the application filed under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC. 4. Though served, the respondents are unrepresented. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.91/2017 seeking the relief of judgment and decree against the respondents to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner as per the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21821 W.P. No.11076/2019 agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016. The respondents in the suit filed a detailed written statement. The averments in the written statement indicate that the respondents have denied the execution of the agreement of sale by late M.Narayanappa, father of the respondents and also the signature found on the said agreement of sale. The petitioner has adduced the evidence and thereafter respondent No.1 examined himself as PW-1. In the cross examination, it is admitted that the father of the respondents late M.Narayananappa was one of the Directors of the Village Forest Committee of Kamandahally Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk. In view of the said admission in the cross-examination, the petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC seeking to issue notice to the Range Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Kolar to produce the resolution book of the said Committee, wherein the said late M.Narayananappa has signed the resolution. The respondents filed objections to the said application by contending that the respondents have produced the registered sale deed dated 20.03.2002 executed by Sri.H.Anjanappa in favour of late M.Narayanappa as per Ex.D8. Hence, it is not necessary to summon the document sought in the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21821 W.P. No.11076/2019 application. The Trial Court, considering the same has rejected the application. It is not in dispute that the petitioner intends to execute the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016. It is always open to the petitioner to examine the witnesses to the agreement and also the documents at Exs.D8 and D9 which are available to compare the signature of late M.Narayanappa with the disputed signature. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application for summoning the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to justify that the signature found at Annexure-F which is the certified copy of the resolution of the said Committee. However, the said document is not admitted by the respondents in any of the proceedings. Hence, it cannot be said that the document at Annexure-F i.e. the resolution of the aforesaid Committee is an admitted document. The Trial Court, considering the registered sale deed which is available on record to compare the signature of late M.Narayanappa, has rightly rejected the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order calling for interference in this petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21821 W.P. No.11076/2019 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the decision of Madras High Court in the case of AMMANI AMMAL Vs. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TIRUPPUR AND ORS.1 and the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of BANDE SIVA SHANKARA SRINIVASA PRASAD Vs. RAVI SURYA PRAKASH BABU AND ORS.2 I have meticulously perused the said judgments. It is not in dispute that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, permits the Court to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature. In the case on hand, the disputed signature in the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016 is available to the Court to compare with Exs.P8 and P9 or Exs.D8 and D9 which are the admitted signatures. Hence, the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not hold water in any way. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: 1 (2008) 1 CTC 816 2 AIR 2016 HYD 118 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21821 W.P. No.11076/2019 ORDER The petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41