- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26067 WP No. 20421 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.20421 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SUBRAMANYA NAIDU S/O.LATE CHANGAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. V.CHITTI BABU S/O.LATE CHANGAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.38/1, 22ND MAIN PADMANABHANAGAR BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIVEK N. FOR SRI RAHUL S.REDDY, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. A.V.RAMESH S/O.VISHWANATHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT CHARTERED AMBA PRASAD NO.3, BULL TEMPLE ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018 2. A.VISHWANATHAMURTHY S/O.A.C.LAKSHMINARAYAN SETTY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT NO. 117, "GOWRAVI" 5TH CROSS ROAD Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26067 WP No. 20421 of 2025 SHASTRINAGAR BENGALURU-560 007 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17.06.2025 PASSED ON THREE IAS. FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) OF CPC IN OS.NO.1146/2010 BY XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 17.06.2025 passed on applications filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the case which is posted for arguments, under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall PW.3 and under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC seeking permission to produce certain documents. 2. The suit is of the year 2010 and is for specific performance of contract. It is shocking that the specific - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26067 WP No. 20421 of 2025 performance is still languishing before the concerned Court, despite passage of 15 years. 3. A perusal at the order would indicate that the applications, plethora in numbers are being filed by the petitioners or by the respondents as the case would be, had delayed proceedings. Now at the time of arguments, the petitioners-plaintiffs come up with the subject applications seeking to reopen the case which is posted for arguments, recall of PW.3 and production of documents. 4. The concerned Court has rejected the applications of the petitioners. The reasons rendered for rejecting the applications so filed are as follows: "6) Point No.1 and 2:- These two points are interconnected and with respect to the relief claimed, hence they have been dealt together. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for specific performance of the contract to enforce agreement of sale dated 17.12.2008. 1st defendant has denied the execution of document as well as his signature. 1st defendant has also produced the scientific - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26067 WP No. 20421 of 2025 examination report which is marked as Ex.D.36. C. Ashwathappa who has given the report by comparing the signatures is examined as DW.2. DW.2 has been cross examined by counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs now intends to produce the document to show that the C. Ashwathappa's report was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court and as such, his report cannot be considered. I have perused the copy of the Writ Petitions referred in application i.e., W.P.No.19062 of 2012 and W.P.No.8144 of 2021. It is clear from W.P.No.19062 of 2012 that C. Ashwathappa was appointed as court Commissioner for scientific investigation to compare disputed signature with admitted signature. The Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition has set aside the order passed in O.S.No.16195 of 2006 on the ground that there is a allegation against C. Ashwathappa that he demanded favours from the plaintiffs of that case and since the Writ Petitioners have apprehended bias towards the report of commissioner, the Hon'ble High court has allowed the Writ Petition and application filed by petitioner was allowed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26067 WP No. 20421 of 2025 directing the Trial Court to appoint fresh commissioner. The Hon'ble High court has not held that C. Ashwathappa is not at all a handwriting expert and he cannot be appointed as a Court Commissioner. In this case, DW.2 C. Ashwathappa is not a Court Commissioner but a witness of defendant. He has given his evidence in respect of report prepared by him and which has been controverted by cross examination. Whether report of C. Ashwathappa is to be considered or not, it is based upon the evidence already adduced. Just because a fresh commissioner was appointed in W.P.No.19062 of 2012 this court cannot say that the evidence of DW.2 cannot be considered at all. The document i.e., order passed in W.P. No.19062 of 2012 cannot be considered as a relevant document to decide the issues involved in this suit. The questions were posed to, the witnesses to know whether he was trustworthy or not. Nowhere in the order Hon'ble High Court has held that C. Ashwathappa is not a trustworthy handwriting expert and his evidence cannot be considered at all. In another judgment which is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26067 WP No. 20421 of 2025 referred by plaintiffs Hon'ble High Court has directed to send the document for examination at Government Forensic Science Laboratory Madiwal instead of private agency. In my opinion the said decision is also not helpful to the plaintiffs as this court has not appointed court Commissioner and the defendant has taken a report privately and to prove that report he examined C. Ashwathappa. This court has not considered DW.2 C. Ashwathappa as court Commissioner and his evidence is that of a witness examined on behalf of defendant No.2 only to prove the report. Evidentiary valued of his report can be evaluated from the available evidence i.e.,. by cross examination of DW.2. Therefore, in my considered opinion the documents sought to be produced is not at all relevant to decide the case on hand and as such, for the purpose of marking the same reopening of the case and recall of PW.3 is not necessary. The report of DW.2 was in the file and the plaintiffs have not taken any action to produce the document to show that C. Ashwathappa is not at all a handwriting expert. Therefore, in my considered opinion - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26067 WP No. 20421 of 2025 there is no explanation for production of document which is not at all necessary. Hence, in my considered view the production of document cannot be ordered as the document does not pertains to issues framed. Once document is not necessary to adjudicate the claim, in my considered opinion reopening the case and recall of PW.3 is also not necessary. Accordingly, point No.1 and 2 are answered in the 'Negative'." 5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order rejecting the applications as the reasons recorded are cogent, there is no perversity or error apparent, for this Court to intervene, interject or quash the order so passed and exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition thus lacking merit and the same is rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103