- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 29180 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHI BAJAJ W/O LATE JAGADISH BAJAJ DIED ON 12.11.2024 AND PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 AND RESPONDENT NOS.7,8 AND 9 MAY BE TREATED AS THE LR'S OF PETITIONER NO.1, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:22.01.2025. 2. SRI. RANJIT JAGADISH BAJAJ S/O LATE JAGADISH BAJAJ AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 3. SRI. RAJESH BAJAJ S/O LATE JAGADISH BAJAJ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PETITIONER NO.2 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.101, OCEAN VIEW, 11 UNION PARTK PALIK HILL KHAR MUMBAI 400 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KRISHNA B S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 AND: 1. SRI MADAN MOHAN PURUSHOTHAM SINGH BAJAJ S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAM SINGH. L. BAJAJ, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. MR. KANYALAL PURUSHOTHAM SINGH BAJAJ, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 2. SMT. ASHA KANAYALAL BAJAJ W/O. LATE KANYALAL BAJAJ AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 3. SMT. CHARISMA KANYALAL BAJAJ D/O. LATE KANYALAL BAJAJ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4. SRI MONISH KANYALAL BAJAJ S/O. LATE KANYALAL BAJAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O BAJAJ HOUSE NO.12, 1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 009 5. MR. PUSHPA RADHAKRISHNAN JAI SINGH W/O. SRI ADHAKRISHNAN JAIN SINGH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O NO.32, KENSINGTON, TOWERS, 687, KENSINGTON ROAD BANGALORE- 560042. 6. SMT. VEENA AMARLAL RUPANI W/O. SRI AMARLAL RUPANI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, SHARDA BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, A ROAD, OPP. JAIHIND COLLEGE, CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI-400001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 7. RITA CHANDRAPRAKASH CHAWLA. A W/O. SRI CHANDPRAKASH CHAWLA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT WHITE GATE, 15, ACONVENTOR MART ROUGH LEIESTER LE 192-CD SMT. ANITA MUTHU KATYA, W/O. SRI MITHU SHIVALDASKATARA SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HER LRS 8. SRI. NANDAKUMAR S. KATARRA H/O LATE ANITA MUTHU KATYA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 9. SRI. MANOHAR NANDAKUMAR KATRA S/O LATE ANITA MUTHU KATYA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, BOTH R8 AND R9 ARE RESIDING AT 267, RAMPO VALLEY ROAD, OAKIANS NEW JERSEY COUNTRY BERGEN, N.J. -07436 U.S.A 10. M/S BAJAJ HOME ENTERPRISES BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, IN CORPORATED UNDER COMPANYS ACT REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.1, 12,1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009. 11. ADARSH VIDYA SANGH A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE, NO. 75, DEVANATHACHAR STREET, V MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE- 560018 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT: SRI HASTIMAL SISODIA SECRETARY: SRI V. PREMARAJAN TRESURER: SRI PADMA RAJ MEHTA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S. V., ADV. FOR R1 TO R4, VIDE ORDER DATED 07/01/2025 NOTICE TO R5 TO R11 IS D/W.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD 10.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3/2024 BY THE HON'BLE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-42) IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2110/2006 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Krishna B.S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Giridhar S.V, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. Perused the records. 2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 10.09.2024 passed on IA No.3 of 2024 in OS 2110 of 2006 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The petitioners are plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3, file a suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 for partition and separate possession. On 26.08.2006, the written statement is filed by the defendant and on 03.07.2007 the written statement by all were in place. Issues were framed on 29.05.2009 and additional issues on 18.12.2006. 3. After completion of the examination and cross- examination of the witnesses at the time of evidence, the Will averments of which is already in the written statement was sought to be marked. The marking of it was objected to and was kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the evidence. Later, the marking of the Will was sought and an application was filed at the time of marking of the Will for reference of the signature on the Will for an handwriting expert. 4. This was kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the trial and after conclusion, the application was taken up for consideration and is rejected by the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Will was never brought to the light till the day on which it was produced for the first time, after 18 years of commencement of the proceedings. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused as they seriously doubt the signatures on the Will and property - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 worth several crores is being transferred by way of the said Will. He would submit that the reference of the signature on the photocopy of the Will is imperative to get to know whether the Will was executed or otherwise. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Sri.S.V. Giridhar would refute the submission, contending that the Will was executed in the year 1980 and the executant of the Will who died in the year 1976. As suit for partition is filed in the year 2006, 19 years have passed by now with the pendency of this suit and would submit that there are about 345 days of hearing that has taken place in the case at hand. 7. The factum of the will in existence was already averred in the written statement. It was only to be produced at the time of evidence. The learned counsel would further add that a photocopy of the Will was already placed along with the written statement in 2007 itself and the original of the Will was placed before the Court at the time of evidence. Hence, learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 9. Afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events, the dates, are all a matter of record. They would not require any iteration. The issue is whether the application filed by the petitioner seeking reference of the disputed signature for examination at the hands of a handwriting expert under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act is tenable or otherwise. The concerned Court has by the following order rejected the application: "9. POINT No.1:- The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. 10. The plaintiffs in the above case have sought for the relief of partition and separate possession in joint family properties while the defendants No.1 and 2 have set up a Will dated 13.05.1995 executed by Purushottham Singh Bajaj in their favour. Therefore, the entire burden regarding execution and proof of Will is on the 2nd defendant. 11. DW.2 is one of the sons of deceased defendant No.2 and he has produced the Will during the examination-in-chief. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 12. Now the cross-examination of DW.2 is completed. Therefore, the application for scientific examination of Ex.D.13 is pressed into motion. The grounds on which the scientific opinion was sought are: (1) For sending the original Will at Ex.D.13 to determine whether it is a photo copy or original document. 13. As regards this ground, this court has already passed a detailed order on 08.04.2024 by holding that Ex.P.13 is the handwritten copy of the Will and it does not appear to be a Xerox copy. Therefore the objection that the purported Will is a secondary evidence is already rejected by conclusively treating the document as the original copy of the Will. 14. Once this Court has recorded a finding that the Will produced by the defendants is a primary evidence and the said finding has attained its finality. Therefore, at this stage, seeking expert opinion notwithstanding the finding recorded by the court is not permissible. 15. The prayer sought in the second part of the application for comparison of the admitted handwriting of Purushotham Singh Bajaj with the handwriting in the Will at Ex.D.13. Similarly to compare the admitted signature of Purushotham Singh Bajaj with his signature at Ex.D.13 and to determine the age of the document produced at Ex.D13 are all subject to the finding of the exepert that the Ex.D13 is the original copy of the Will. The consideration of these eventualities do - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 not arise as prima facie the order dated 8.4.2024 in admitting the Will by treating it as the original has remained unchallenged. Therefore once there is a judicial determination on the admissibility of the document specifically on the mode of proof, the question of re-opening the said issue during the continuation of the same proceedings do not arise. Thus in view of the finding recorded by this court that. Ex.D.13 cannot be sent for forensic analysis to determine whether it is a photo copy or the original document Accordingly the present I.A.NO.3 is liable to be rejected. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative. 16. Point NO.2:- In view of my finding on Point No.1, I process to pass the following: ORDER I.A. No.3/2024 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 10(a) read with section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby rejected. No order as to costs." 10. The concerned Court holds for a judicial determination on the admissibility of a document specifically made, the question would depend upon the proof. The question of re-opening the said issue during the continuation of the same proceeding would not arise. The concerned Court holds that the Will or the factum of the will had already been brought to the notice of the plaintiff in the year 2007 at the time of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37835 WP No. 29180 of 2024 filing of the written statement. A photocopy of the Will was also appended to the written statement. Now at the time when the evidence is being led, when the original of the Will was sought to be marked, all the objections have sprung in the light of the issue being of the year 1980. 11. In light of the reason so rendered by the concerned Court, which does not brood any perversity or error apparent, there is no warrant of interference at the hands of this court at this juncture. It is always open to the petitioner to urge all these contentions at the time of arguments before the concerned Court, which stage the proceeding is. In that light, I find no merit in the contentions taken by the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed. The observations however made in the impugned order will not come in the way of the concerned Court answering the issue on its merit. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16