- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:807 WP No. 30355 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 30355 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. B.N. SRINIVAS, S/O LATE B. NARAYANAPPA, AGED 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1/41, 8TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, VENKATESHVARA LAYOUT, NEAR KIDNEY FOUNDATION, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 070. 2. SMT. SUNANDAMMA, W/O B.N. SRINIVAS, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1/41, 8TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, VENKATESHVARA LAYOUT, NEAR KIDNEY FOUNDATION, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 070. 3. SRI. CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O LATE B. NARAYANAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, R/A 31/4, 9TH CROSS, NEAR KRS CONVENT SCHOOL, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 040. 4. SRI. VENKATESH, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS 4(A). SMT. SUJATHA, W/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:807 WP No. 30355 of 2019 4(B). SMT. BHAWYA, D/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED 28 YEARS, 4(C). BHARATH, S/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL OF THEM RESIDING AT NO.2103/10, 2ND RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 059. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHAILESH G. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOWRISHANKAR C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N. JAGANATH, S/O LATE B. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A KAIWARA VILLAGE, POST AND HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 125. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. MANJULAMMA, D/O GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. VENKATLAKSHMI, D/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT CHANDURENI PALYA, KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 059. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:807 WP No. 30355 of 2019 (BY SRI. M. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.T. JAGANNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3, R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNX-F VIDE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 PASSED ON IA-37 FILED BY PETITIONERS U/S 45 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT R/W ORDER 26 RULE 10-A R/W SEC.151 OF CPC 1908 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC CHINTHAMANI BY DIRECTING TO SEND THE SIGNATURES FOUND ON EXHIBIT D12, PLAINT VAKALATH TO THE FORENSIC/SIGNATURE EXPERT FOR THE EXPERT OPINION TO ENABLE THE DISPOSAL OF MAIN LIS ONMERITS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.37 in O.S.No.211/2007 dated 21.06.2019 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Chintamani, the defendants are before this Court. 2. I.A.No.37 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Order 26 Rule 10A to send the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:807 WP No. 30355 of 2019 admitted and disputed signatures of the plaintiff found in the release deed executed by the plaintiff which is marked as exhibit D12 along with admitted signatures found in the plaint vakalath, to the expert. The said application came to be dismissed by the Court observing that the suit is filed on 19.07.2007 and issues were framed on 10.11.2009. The evidence of both the parties were concluded and matter was posted for arguments on 18.06.2018. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC that the properties may be alienated then the Court has passed an order on 12.02.2019. At that stage, the present application came to be filed. The Court observes that after lapse of so many months, the defendants have filed this application only to dodge the proceedings. No specific reasons were assigned and accordingly, dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants submits that the signatures on the release deed and the plaint discloses to naked eye that they were - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:807 WP No. 30355 of 2019 not one and the same and if that is sent to the expert, the true facts will come to light and it will have a bearing on the suit. The Court without considering all these aspects only on the ground that the application is filed belatedly, had dismissed the petition, which is contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that when the suit is of the year 2007 and when the entire evidence is concluded, they have come up with such a petition, which shows that only with an intention to protract the proceedings, the application is filed and the Court had rightly dismissed the application. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. Suit is filed for partition that is in the year 2007. The entire case was heard, trial was conducted and when the matter was posted for arguments, at that stage, the present application is filed i.e., in the year 2019. The Court below has rightly considered all the aspects and rightly dismissed application by concluding that only with an intention to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:807 WP No. 30355 of 2019 drag on the proceedings, the present application is filed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court had rightly considered all the aspects and dismissed the petition. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed. All IAs., in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK