- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.100868 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: ABDUL RAZAK S/O. LADSAB AWATE, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MAHANTANAGAR, KAMALAPUR, MAIN ROAD, MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHIT S. PATIL AND SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. HABIBABEGUM, W/O. AZIZSAB MUDNAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 1. SMT. REHANA W/O. MUJEEB UR REHAMAN KADKOL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AT POST KONNUR, TQ: TALIKOTI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 2. SMT. SAHERA BEGAUM @ ABEDA BEGAUM W/O. ALLAUDDIN BENNESHIRUR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AT POST ALMEL NEAR IQRA SCHOOL KANNI ROAD, ALMEL, TQ: SINDGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 3. SMT. FARZANA W/O. MEHEBOOB SAUDAGAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AT POST NEAR ROSHAN MARRIAGE HALL, MANGOLLI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 4. SRI. ASHPAQ S/O. ABDUL AZIZ MUDNAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT POST KONNUR, TQ: TALIKOTI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 5. SRI. ALTHAF S/O. ABDUL AZIZ MUDNAL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT POST KONNUR, TQ: TALIKOTI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 6. SMT. FAREEDA W/O. NOORAHMAD AVATI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MAHANT NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD. 7. SRI. ABDULRAZAK S/O. ABDUL AZIZ MUDNAL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT POST KONNUR, TQ: TALIKOTI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 8. SRI. ABDULSHAKUR S/O. ABDUL AZIZ MUDNAL, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT POST KONNUR, TQ: TALIKOTI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 9. SHRI. ABDULRAHIM S/O. NISSARAHAMED MUNSHI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS, R/O. GOUDAR ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, DHARWAD-580009. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH V/O 07.02.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/11/2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.205/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-M BE SET ASIDE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/11/2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.205/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-Q BE SET ASIDE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. The Impugned order dated 21/11/2024 passed in OS. NO.205/2010 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad vide Annexure-M be set aside in the ends of justice. b. The impugned order dated 24/11/2023 passed in O.S. No.205/2010 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad vide ANNEXURE-Q be set aside in the ends of justice. c. That, any other reliefs deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be awarded. 2. By way of the above petition, two orders passed in O.S.No.205/2010, have been challenged. O.S.No.205/2010 had been filed by the petitioners seeking for specific performance and certain other reliefs. In the said suit, an application having been filed for referring certain documents to handwriting expert under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity), - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 the same was rejected, which came up before this Court in WP No.100294/2024 and this Court vide order dated 27.01.2024 had referred the matter to the RFSL, Belagavi, which came to be modified vide order dated 01.03.2024 and forwarded to Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bangalore for doing the needful. 3. Though it was sent to the Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bengalore, a report of the Fingerprint Expert at Dharwad has been submitted to the Court. The Fingerprint Expert has been cross-examined and thereafter, an application came to be filed by the petitioners seeking for rejection of the report submitted by the Commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2024. One of the order challenged is the said order. 4. Another application had been filed by the petitioners under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC seeking for a direction to defendant No.2 to produce the original sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 No.1 on the ground that defendant No.1 has not executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. The said application came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.11.2023. The said order is also under challenge in the present proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when this Court had initially directed the matter to be referred to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Belagavi and subsequently, modified it by order dated 01.03.2024 for examination to be conducted by Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala Bangalore, a report of the Fingerprint Expert of Dharwad, could not have been issued. As such, the trial Court ought to have rejected the said report submitted by the Fingerprint Expert at Dharwad. The same not being in accordance with the order passed by this Court. 6. Insofar as the application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC is concerned, his submission is that there is no sale deed which has been executed by defendant No.1 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 in favour of defendant No.2, what has been produced is only the certified copy and for purpose of verification of the fact of execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, the original document is required to be produced. As such, he submits that the request for rejection of the Commissioners’ report as also the application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC, was required to be allowed by trial Court. 7. Having perused the order passed by trial Court as also having perused the report submitted, it is seen that the covering letter is issued by the Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bengaluru enclosing the report of the Fingerprint Expert at Dharwad. There being a Fingerprint Expert at Dharwad, the examination by the said expert at Dharwad, cannot be found fault with. 8. Initially there was only a Forensic Science Laboratory at Bangalore, subsequently there are Regional Forensic Science Laboratories and or Finger Print Bureau’s, which are being established at different - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 Commissionerate’s in the State and going forward, it is expected that FSL including finger print bureaus would be established at each district with all the facilities as directed by this Court in Crl. Petition No.7019 of 2020. The purport and intent of the same being for providing the Forensic Science Services at each district. 9. In the present case, at the time of passing of the order dated 01.03.2024 it was not known to this Court as to whether there was a Fingerprint Expert attached to the Assistant Commissioner of police office at Hubli- Dharwad. In that view of the matter, the Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau having forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police office in Hubli- Dharwad for examination by the Fingerprint Expert posted there, cannot be found fault with. 10. Insofar as the merits of the report are concerned, the same would have to be examined by the trial Court in terms of the evidence led and arguments which have been advanced. The report cannot be rejected only on the ground that the examination is done by the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 Fingerprint Expert at Hubli-Dharwad and not by the Fingerprint Expert at Madiwala, Bangalore. 11. The Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bengaluru is directed to inform all the Courts in Karnataka the details of the nearest FSL/RFSL as also Finger Print Bureau to such Court to which the samples can be sent to for examination. 12. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC was filed for production of the original sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs contending defendant No.1 has not executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. This is a positive affirmation by defendant No.1 that defendant No.1 has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. There being no denial by defendant No.1, the question of plaintiffs denying a registered sale deed, which has been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, would not arise. As such, there - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2424 WP No. 100868 of 2025 would be no requirement for production of the original sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and 2. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. 13. The additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bengaluru for doing needful, report of compliance to be filed by 15.03.2025. 14. Though the above matter is disposed, re-list on 18-03-2025 to consider the compliance report filed by the Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bengaluru. Registry to print the name of Learned AGA in the cause list to enable reporting of compliance. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12