- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22897 WP No. 16653 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16653 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. SMT. ANITHA W/O GURU D/O LATE MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SMT. NAVEENA W/O VENKATESH D/O LATE MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. SRI. MAHENDRA S/O LATE MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 5. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNA D/O LATE CHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 6. SMT. PUTTAAMADAMMA, W/O BASAVARAJU, D/O LATE CHAMAIAH, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22897 WP No. 16653 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 7. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, W/O CHIKANNA, D/O LATE CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 8. SRI. MAHESHA, S/O LATE CHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.63, SIDDAPPAJI ROAD, H.D. KOTE TOWN, H.D.KOTE, MYSORE - 577 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N. VAGEESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHEEMAIAH S/O. LATE KULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. SMT. SANNAMADAMMA, W/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT MURUDAGALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR K.M., ADVOCATE AND SMT. VASUNDRA T.P., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22897 WP No. 16653 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 17 FILED UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS NO. 1185/2014 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CFM AT MYSURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -L AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.17 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act' for short) to refer the so called signatures in two documents i.e., Ex.D42 and Ex.D62 in O.S.No.1185/2014. The said applications come to be rejected. The rejection of which has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 2. Heard Sri N. Vageesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Sanath Kumar K.M. and Smt. Vasundara - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22897 WP No. 16653 of 2025 T.P., learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the signatures that are found in Ex.D42 and Ex.D62 are not of Sri. Mahesha (PW.1) and his father. The petitioners have not signed upon the documents that are now sought to be produced and are marked as Ex.D42 and Ex.D62. The concerned Court has rejected the application on the ground that if the Court would generate a doubt, under Section 73 of the Act, the Court can compare the signature available on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no contemporaneous documents are produced for such verification. Therefore, the application so filed by the petitioners is appropriately rejected. 5. The concerned Court on the following reasons, rejected the application: "7. Point No.1: The Plaintiffs have filed the suit against the Defendants for the relief of Declaration to declare that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22897 WP No. 16653 of 2025 consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their family members, workers, agent or anybody acting on their behalf from interfering with the Plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 8. When the matter was set down for final arguments this application came to be filed by the Plaintiff seeking for referring Ex.D42 and D62 to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures found in the said documents which are disputed by the Plaintiff and also compare the signatures found in the admitted documents i.e, Vakalathnama of Plaintiff and chief evidence affidavit of PW.1. According to the Plaintiff, they have not executed any relinquishment deed muchless Ex.D42 and D62 and the said documents have been created by the Defendants. To disprove the contention of the Defendant, it is very much essential to refer these two documents to the expert to compare the same by appointing handwriting expert as Commissioner. 9. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 and 2 have seriously contended that the Plaintiff and his father have executed and put their signature on Ex.D42 and D62 and this court by invoking Sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act can compare the admitted and disputed documents and arrive at a right conclusion of the controversy involved between the parties. Further, the Defendant No.1 and 2 taken the contention that in order to drag on the proceedings this application has been filed by the Plaintiff and also taken the contention that the Plaintiff has not produced any public document signed by him in the year 1993 since these documents pertaining to the same year. 10. On hearing the rival contentions and on perusal of the documents available on record in my humble opinion that if the admitted and disputed documents are referred to the handwriting expert at this fag end of the case, it would become unnecessary time consumption. Moreover, this court is having ample power to compare the signatures available on record at the time of passing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22897 WP No. 16653 of 2025 the judgment. The Defendant No.1 and 2 have filed the written statement in the year 2015 and have taken specific contention that the discharged mortgage amount, Chamaiah has executed Relinquishment Deed dated 10.12.1993 in favour of Defendant No.1 to an extent of 12 acres 8 gutnas and also executed Relinquishment Deed dated 10.12.1993 in favour of husband of the Defendant No.2 to an extent of 2 acres 9 guntas by receiving a sum of Rs.8,000/- by relinquishing all his rights over the said propeerty in favour of Defendant No.1 and 2. So, when the Defendant No.1 and 2 have taken the contention and filed their written statement in the year 2015 the Plaintiff would have taken necessary steps at the earliest point of time to question these Ex.D42 and 62 by filing necessary application. But the Plaintiff did not do so. The Plaintiff is not diligent in conducting a case. Moreover, the Plaintiff has not made any efforts to file this kind of application at the earliest point of time. Moreover, the burden to prove the contents of Ex.D42 and 62 is on the Defendant. Hence, at this belated stage, the present application deserves to be rejected. Since the matter pertaining to the year 2014, it is not desirable to refer the documents to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures. Under such circumstances, the Plaintiff has not made out any bonafide grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, I hold Point No.1 in the Negative. 11. Point No.2:- In view of the answer to the above Point No. 1, this court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The I.A.No.17 filed by the Plaintiff U/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act R/w Section 151 of CPC is hereby rejected." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22897 WP No. 16653 of 2025 6. There is no error apparent committed by concerned Court in rejection of I.A.No.17 seeking reference of the aforesaid two documents under Section 45 of the Act to an handwriting expert. With the aforesaid observations, finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT: BHK