- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.2541 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA W/O ARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SRI. MUNEGOWDA S/O SRI ARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SMT. USHA D/O ARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. SRI. DILIP, S/O ARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT MENASI MAJARA ANAGALAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA, HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 103. ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NAGARATHNA S.K., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. ANJANEYA, S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, - 2 - RESIDING AT KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 043 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUDHAKAR V., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, BY QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE PRINICIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA ON I.A. V UNDER SEC. 73 OF EVIDENCE ACT READ WITH SEC. 151 OF CPC IN O.S.337/2009 DATED 23.11.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-‘G’, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the Order dated 23.11.2020 passed on I.A. No.5 in O.S.No.337/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C Doddaballapur (for short, 'the trial Court'). - 3 - 2. The Petitioners 1 to 4 herein are Defendants no 2 to 5 before the Trial Court and the respondent, herein is the Plaintiff before the Trial Court. 3. The Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Respondent has filed a suit against the Petitioners for specific performance of an alleged agreement dated 10.11.2006. Respondent in the suit alleged that Sri. Arasappa, the deceased 1st defendant along with his wife and children i.e., petitioners have entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the property bearing Sy. No. 23/2A of Menasi village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, to an extent of one acre. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- and an advance of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the Respondent and remaining sum was agreed to be paid at the time of Registration. However, the petitioners failed to perform their part of obligation and thus, suit was filed. Petitioners filed their written statement contending that it was not an agreement to sell and it was money transaction wherein the petitioners did not intend to sell the property at any point of time. They were taken by - 4 - plaintiff to the Sub Registrar’s office saying that they were taken by plaintiff executing guarantee deed for the loan obtained by them. In fact, there was a panchayat held in the house of plaintiff and plaintiff in his own handwriting worked out the interest and gave it to the defendants/respondents. During the course of cross examination, The petitioner’s counsel confronted the document wherein the plaintiff/respondent had worked out the interest on the amount received by the petitioners and the Respondent denied it. Then, the petitioner filed an application I.A.No. V under section 73 of the Evidence Act seeking the Trial Court to take the words and figures that are found in the confronted document before the Trial Court to enable the court to compare the both. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides dismissed the application by an order dated 23.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have approached this court. 4. Heard counsels on both sides. - 5 - 5. The Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Trail Court has erred in dismissing the application holding that the court cannot dictate to the witness or party to write words or figures to use the same for comparison with any word and figures alleged to have been written by that person. It is also contended that the Section 73 of the Evidence Act is the only provision wherein the court is empowered to obtain the writings of witness or the party present in court to compare with the admitted one. 6. It was further contended that court erred in holding Sec.73 does not empower the court to direct any witness present before court to take such writing for purpose of its evidence or its own case or for the purpose of using said writing or words or writing of figures for the comparison for the disputed one. The Purpose of Section 73 is to obtain the writings such as figures and words to compare if they were written by the same person. Such being the case, court below has erred in dismissing the application. - 6 - 7. It was also contended that the application was with a view that it would assist the court in doing complete justice to parties and not as held by the court below. Infact, the calculation written by the Respondent was confronted to him and the same was denied. When he was questioned whether he was ready to write words and figures as shown in the said document before the court, the Respondent agreed. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the application. 8. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record. 9. It is observed that, on plain reading of the provision of Section 73 of Evidence Act, it clearly shows that the clause limits the power of the court only to direct the person present in court to write any words or figures only where the court itself is of the view that it is necessary for its own purposes to take such writing in order to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. However, the aforesaid section 73 of Evidence Act does not - 7 - empower the court to direct any witness or party present before the court to take such writing for the purpose of its evidence or its own case or for the purpose of suing the said writings or words or writing or figures for the purpose of using the said writing or figures for the purpose of comparison with the disputed writing. 10. Further, for the application of the Section 73 of the Evidence Act, two conditions have to be satisfied. First one is that the writing with which the comparison is to be made, or otherwise called standard writing, should be one either admitted by the person alleged to have been made the writing, or should be prove to have been written by the person to whom it is attributed. Secondly the writing to be compared with the standard one must be shown to have been written by the same person, i.e., the writing itself must state or indicate that it was written by that persons. 11. For better understanding of the provisions of section 73 of the Evidence Act, it is necessary to refer to the decision - 8 - reported in AIR 1958 Bombay 207 in State vs Poonam Chand Gupta where the provision of section 73 of the evidence Act come up for interpretation and while interpreting the aforesaid provision of section 73 of the Evidence Act, it is held as under: “In terms the second clause limits the power of the court would directing the person present in court to write any words or figures only where the court itself is of the view that it is necessary for its own purpose to take such writing in order to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. However, the power does not extent to permitting one or another party before the court to ask the court to take such writing for the purpose of its evidence or its own case.” 12. It is further observed that the trial Court relied on the following Judgments: The provisions of section 73 of the Evidence Act also interpreted by the Calcutta High Court in a decision reported in AIR 1958 Calcutta 128 in between Hiralal Agarwal V/s. the State wherein it was observed that "Section 73 of Evidence Act cannot be construed as an instrument of a case or devise to be used for the advancement of any party, either the prosecution or the accused. - 9 - It is one of those sections where large powers are given to the Courts with obvious object of enabling the Court to find out the truth and to do complete justice between party and party, any other use of it would be wholly unjustified. It was further observed that in so far as the Magistrate wants to be satisfied as to the genteelness or otherwise of certain writing it is quite open to him to ask the accused to write certain words and figures in order to a comparison might be made between them and the disputed writing but it is certainly not open to the Magistrate to hand the document over the prosecution in order that they might may use of it as a piece of their own evidence, nor he can sign the documents to an expert who is alleged to be a prosecution witness." It is also necessary to refer the decision reported in 1975 Gujarath 95 in between Babubhai Mulchanddas Kapadia V/s. Ishwarlal Devchand Kabrawala wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 73 of Evidence Act in a case where the trial Court directed the defendant to write in the open Court contents of writings of Q.1 and 2 as desired by the Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned documents. - 10 - Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court the plaintiff preferred a civil revision petition and the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order stating that the section 73 of the Evidence act does not empower the Court to direct any witness or party present before the Court to take such writing for the purpose of its evidence or its own case or for the purpose of using the said writing or words or figures as standard writings or figures for the purpose of comparison with the disputed writing. 13. In view of the above discussions, it appears that the defendant has filed this application seeking direction to the plaintiff to give words or figures which are mentioned in the document dated 19.11.2006 in his own hand writing is to collect evidence in order to support their defence. As could be seen from Section 73 of the Evidence Act, a party cannot be directed to give his writing in order to assist the party to the proceedings by asking any person to write any words or figures with the view that the words or figures may be used for comparison with the alleged writings or figures. - 11 - 14. In view of the above observations, I am of the view that there are no merits to interfere in this Order. The trial Court rightly observed the legal principles and dismissed I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC. The Order dated 23.11.2020 passed on I.A. No.5 in O.S.No.337/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C Doddaballapur, is confirmed. However, as the suit is of the year 2009, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV CT: UR