- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42990 WP No. 427 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 427 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI JASMER PRAKASH S/O SRI SURENDRA PRAKASH R/A NO.19, SULTANPUR ESTATE MEHRAULL, NEW DELHI-30. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADV.) AND: 1. MRS. RADHA KHOSLA @ RADHA PRAKASH D/O LATE SURENDRA PRAKASH AGED MAJOR R/A NO.6, FIRS DRIE CRANFORD MIDDS, TW59 PD, ENGLAND. 2. SRI T. SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O LATE S TARASA R/A NO.B-10, 8TH E MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYAANGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. 3. SRI M.P. NARAYANACHAR S/O SRI M.B. PUTTASWAMACHAR R/A NO.1107, 38TH CROSS 11TH MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. 4. SRI K.T. SUBHASH S/O SRI P.G. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42990 WP No. 427 of 2019 5. SRI RAVI BANDI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O B.K. VENAKTESH. NO.2 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT VENKATESHWARA NILAYA NO.2103/25, 2-A RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KENGERI SATALLITE TOWN BENGALURU - 560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV., FOR R-2; V/O/D 03.03.2020 & 13.04.2023, NOTICE TO R-1, R-3 TO R-5 IS D/W) THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.8.2018 PASSED BY THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-36) IN O.S.NO.1696/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-J REJECTING I.A.NO.12 (ANNEXURE-G) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff is before this court in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 30.08.2018 passed on IA no.2 in O.S.No.1696/2010 by the Court of XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42990 WP No. 427 of 2019 3. O.S.No.1696/2010 has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits. The said suit is opposed by defendant no.3 by filing a detailed written statement. In the said suit, IA no.12 was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to refer his signatures found in the disputed General Power of Attorney at Ex.D4 with his admitted signatures found in the pleadings and vakalath in O.S.No.1696/2010 for the purpose of examination by a handwriting expert and to submit report. The said application was opposed by defendant no.3 by filing objections. The Trial Court by the order impugned dated 30.08.2018 has rejected IA no.12 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits, that a bare comparison of two signatures found in the disputed document - Ex.D4 and the admitted signature of the petitioner would go to show that there is a remarkable difference in the signatures. He submits - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42990 WP No. 427 of 2019 that petitioner never executed a general power of attorney in favour of his mother. On the basis of the fraudulent general power of attorney - Ex.D4, petitioner's mother has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 5 & 6 and defendant no.3 has purchased the said property subsequently from defendant nos.5 & 6. Defendant no.3 claims right over the suit schedule property which was initially sold by the mother of the petitioner based on the fraudulent GPA - Ex.D4. For the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute, the Trial Court ought to have granted the prayer made in the application. No hardship would be caused to the other side. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 submits that defendant no.3 has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant nos.5 & 6 under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.1998. Defendant no. 4, who is a tenant in occupation of the suit schedule property had setup an agreement for sale dated 05.12.1993 in the name of defendant no.2 and had filed O.S.No.1522/1995 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, in which the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42990 WP No. 427 of 2019 herein was also a party. The said suit was dismissed after contest and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1522/1995 was confirmed by this Court in R.F.A.No.1307/2003. He submits that challenge made to the said judgment and decree before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also rejected. Defendant no.3 has initiated eviction proceedings against defendant no.4 in HRC No.496/2004 and an eviction order has been passed against him by this Court in H.R.R.P.No.159/2009 on 24.06.2010. The eviction order passed against defendant no.4 in H.R.R.P.No.159/2009 has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C).No.26519/2010, and thereafter, at the instance of defendant no.4, the present suit is filed by the petitioner herein. He submits that execution of the general power of attorney by the petitioner in favour of his mother was not disputed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1522/1995 in which he was a party. Only for the purpose of protracting the litigation, the present application is filed. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42990 WP No. 427 of 2019 6. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1696/2010 which is filed by him before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Defendant nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.1696/2010 are the sister and mother of the plaintiff. 7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that suit schedule property was sold by defendant no.2 who is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, under a registered sale deed in favour of defendant nos.5 & 6. Defendant no.3 herein subsequently had purchased the suit schedule property for valid sale consideration under a registered sale deed on 30.07.1998. It appears that defendant no.4 who is a tenant in occupation of the suit schedule property, had filed O.S.No.1522/1995 for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 05.12.1993 said to have been executed by defendant no.2 in the present case in his favour. The petitioner was also a party defendant in the said suit. Defendant no.3 who got impleaded in the said suit contested the claim made by defendant no.4 and ultimately the suit was dismissed on 16.07.2003 and the said judgment and decree passed in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42990 WP No. 427 of 2019 O.S.No.1522/1995 has attained finality. It is also relevant to note here that defendant no.3 has initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent no.4 by filing H.R.C.No.496/2004 and in the revision petition which arose from the said proceedings, this Court in H.R.R.P.No.159/2009 has directed eviction of defendant no.4 from the suit schedule property and the said order of eviction passed against defendant no.4 has attained finality in the year 2010 itself. According to respondent no.3/defendant no.3, after having suffered the order of eviction, defendant no.4 has setup the petitioner herein to file the present suit. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that execution of general power of attorney by the petitioner in favour of his mother who is defendant no.2 in the present suit was stated in the pleadings in O.S.No.1522/1995 and the same was not disputed at any point of time by the petitioner herein who was undisputedly a party to O.S.No.1522/1995. The Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly rejected the present application - IA no.12 filed by the petitioner seeking to refer the said General Power of Attorney - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42990 WP No. 427 of 2019 which is marked as Ex.D4 in the present suit, to a handwriting expert, for the purpose of examination of his signatures found in the said document, with his signatures found in the pleadings and vakalath in the present suit. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the said order, more so when the petitioner had not disputed his signature found in the very same document which had come on record in O.S.No.1522/1995. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK