- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42501 WP No. 16320 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 16320 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: P.R. ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE P.N. RAMADEVUDU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.124 K.P. NILAYA, 11TH MAIN ROAD J.C.NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATYANAND B.S, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. S. LAKSHMI W/O MR. K. SURYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.264, 4TH CROSS 13TH MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 023. PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO.1/A 185, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE EXTENSION BHOOPASANDRA, BANGALORE PIN - 560 094. 2. MR. K. NAGARAJ S/O LATE A. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42501 WP No. 16320 of 2023 R/AT DOOR NO.124, 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN, MATHRUANAGARA MYSORE CITY - 570 016. PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO. 211 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS BRINDAVAN EXTENSION 1ST STAGE MYSORE - 570 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DTD 13.07.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND CJM AT MYSORE IN OS NO. 600/2012 ALLOWING THE IA NO. 32 FILED UNDER ORDER RULE 10(A) CPC PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IAN O. 32 FILED BY THE R-2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.07.2023 passed on I.A.No.XXXII filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42501 WP No. 16320 of 2023 O.S.No.600/2012 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. O.S.No.600/2012 is filed before the jurisdictional civil Court, Mysuru by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of specific performance of sale agreement dated 28.08.2009(Ex.P.1). It is the case of the petitioner that defendant no.1 had earlier executed a registered mortgage deed dated 20.09.1997 (Ex.P4) in favour of petitioner and petitioner is in possession of suit schedule property under the said mortgage deed. Subsequently, defendant no.1 had executed Ex.P.1 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to the petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs. It appears that, the Trial Court had granted an interim order in O.S.No.600/2012 restraining defendant no.1 from alienating suit schedule property during pendency of the suit and in violation of the interim order, defendant no.1 had executed a sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.2. I.A.No.XXXII was filed by defendant no.2 in O.S.No.600/2012 with a prayer to refer Ex.P.1 and P.4 to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42501 WP No. 16320 of 2023 hand writing expert for the purpose of comparing the signature of defendant no.1 found in the aforesaid two documents. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection and the Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed the said application and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, defendant no.1 has filed a detailed written statement in the present case through her general power of attorney on 24.03.2015. In the said written statement she has disputed execution of Ex.P.1 as well as Ex.P.4. When defendant no.1 herself has disputed her signature found both in Ex.P.1 and P.4, it was not open for defendant no.2 to make a request to the Trial Court to forward Ex.P.1 and P.4 to the hand writing expert to compare the dispute signature found in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.4. The documents can be referred to an expert only to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature of a party. 5. In the present case, defendant no.1 has disputed both the documents and therefore, the Trial Court was not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42501 WP No. 16320 of 2023 justified in allowing I.A.No.XXXII filed by defendant no.2. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the following :- ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) order dated 13.07.2023 passed on I.A.No.XXXII filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC in O.S.No.600/2012 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru is set aside. (iii) Since the suit is of the year 2012, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible. Peding IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26