- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 35133 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. P. BABU, S/O LATE PADMANABHA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.671, "PREMNIVAS", GRAPE GARDEN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 084. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.PUSHPA BAI, W/O KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD MAIN, SRI M.V.NAGAR, OPP. TO KOSHYA HOSPITAL, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.GUBBI SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE OCI PRAYING TO ORDER, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO. IV DATED 04/11/2024 PASSED IN OS NO.5226/2011 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-26), PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE – L AND ETC., 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 petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order on I.A.No.4 dated 4.11.2024 passed in O.S.No. 5226/2011 by the City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-26). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief german is as follows: The respondent is the plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.5226/2011 for declaration and possession. The said suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 progresses further. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the claim of the petitioner or the defense of the respondent. The issue revolves around allowing of an application in IA No. 6 seeking reference of certain documents for an expert opinion by invoking Order 26 Rule 10-A r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The said application is filed by the present petitioner comes to be resisted by the respondent-plaintiff. The concerned Court after considering the objections of the respondent-plaintiff rejects the application. The rejection of the application is what has driven the petitioner-defendant to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coordinate bench of this Court had earlier rejected the challenge to an application filed by the plaintiff and had reserved liberty to file necessary application and pursue the application that had already been filed by the defendant before the concerned court. Taking cue from the said order the application is pursued and the pursuit of which leads to the rejection of the application. The learned counsel further submits that the documents that are disputed are necessary to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 be sent to a handwriting expert as these are the disputed documents and not admitted. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits earlier the documents that are now being sought to be sent for forensic examination or handwriting expert were already sent and there is a report before the concerned court. The subject application is preferred seeking taking the documents to exhibits Ex.P1, Ex.D3 and Ex.D.16 to be sent to forensic examination or to handwriting expert is only a ruse to drag the proceedings further, he would seek for dismissal of the petition. 6. Therefore, I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. The issue lies in a narrow compasses to whether the disputed documents as sought for should be permitted to be referred to the handwriting expert. 8. The application filed by the plaintiff results in, it being allowed of which was challenged by the defendant before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 this Court in W.P.No.13821 of 2021. This Court by the following order rejected the challenge by the defendant of the application of allowing of the application filed by the plaintiff while so observing the concerned court also notices the fact that the petitioner-defendant had filed an application which is already pending that is what is now pursued as observed here in above. The concerned Court by the following order rejects the application which reads as follows: "4. Heard the arguments. 5. The point for determination of the Court is-"Whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to appoint a court commissioner and it is necessary for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute between the parties?" 6. Finding of this Court on the above point is in the negative, for the following:- -: REASONS:- 7. The plaintiff has filed the suit to declare that the sale dated 31.03.2011 executed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and also for possession of suit schedule property from the defendant to her. It is the contention of the plaintiff that one V. Sachithanandam, who is the owner of the suit schedule property, has executed a general power of attorney in favour of her daughter Smt.Godavari as per Ex.P1 on 27.03.1999 and on the basis of said power of attorney said Godavari has sold it to one M. Sudhakar, who is the brother of V.Sachithanandam through a registered sale deed dated 08.04.1999, which is marked as Ex.P2. It is her further contention that said Sudhakar executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff on 12.08.2010 as per Ex.P5 and therefore she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is also contended by her that the sale deed relied upon by the defendant dated 31.03.2011 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 said to be executed by one Ramaiah claiming to be the power of attorney holder of V.Sachithanandam is null and void as V.Sachithanandam has not executed any power of attorney in favour of Ramaiah. On the other hand, the contention of the defendant is that V.Sachithanandam had executed a power of attorney dated 22.02.1999 in favour of Ramaiah as per Ex.D3 and said Ramaiah has executed the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 in his favour as per Ex.D6. 8. Now the defendant would like to seek scientific expert report with regard to the Ex.P1 GPA said to be executed b Sachithanandam in favour of Godavari dated 27.03.1999, G to be executed by V. Sachithanandam in favour of Ramaiah dated 22.02.1999 produced Ex.D3 and also a letter/document styled as property settlement said to be executed by V. Sachithanandam as per Ex D16 dated 03.10.2011. 9. In so far as Ex.D16, a letter/document which is styled as settlement said to be executed by V. Sachithanandam is concerned, it is not pleaded by the defendant in his written statement. Even otherwise it is an unregistered letter said to be executed by Sachithanandam after the execution of all the registration deeds. 10. It is also relevant to note that the general power of attorney said to be executed by V. Sachithanandam in favour of Ramaiah dated 22.02.1999 produced at Ex.D3 is also not specifically pleaded in the written statement. Even if this aspect is ignored, whether it was an irrevocable power of attorney or it confers right to execute the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 is a matter of interpretation as the sale deed executed on the basis of the said document is dated 31.03.2011. Apart from that, it is also necessary to note that the first sale deed came to be executed as per Ex.P2 on 08.04.1999 from Godavari to Sudhakar. Therefore, the primary point that is required to be considered with regard to the execution GPA from V. Sachithanandam to Godavari produced at Ex.P1. War as Ex.P1 is concerned, the executant V. Sachithanandam examuned as PW2. Whether the evidence of PW2 V. Sachithanandam as an executant of two disputed GPAs is trustworthy or not, is a matter of appreciation of evidence. If the executant is not examined before the court, the circumstances would have been different. It is also relevant to note that in so far as the comparison of signature is concerned, it is not a substantive evidence. The criteria for appointment of court commissioner for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC and appointment of commissioner for scientific investigation under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC are different. Therefore, Order XXVI Rule 10A specifically provides that it is only when a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot be done by the court, then if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interests of justice, then only appointment of commissioner is permissible under Order XXVI Rule 10 A CPC. As stated above, in the present case, even without the scientific examination on the basis of the evidence available before the Court, the Court can effectively and properly record a finding on the disputed issues. Therefore, there is no need for scientific examination for the determination of disputes in controversy between the parties. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has contended that proof of thumb impression is a perfect science and The matter is referred, all the disputes will be clarified. But, mere of of signature or thumb impression alone is not the proof of execution of a document. The execution of the document is required to be proved by other evidence also. Added to this, the legal position and effect of documents are also required to be considered while recording a finding with regard to the consequence of documents. Reference to the scientific expert is required if the court is unable to form definite opinion on the basis of other direct evidence available on record. If other direct evidence is available on record, there is no need to refer the disputed signature or thumb impression to an expert. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of Classic Infracon Bangalore Private Limited v/s UPLUS Batteries Pvt. Ltd. [W.P.Nos. 44410 and 51359/2014 (GM-CPC)]. It was a case wherein a commissioner was appointed for the local inspection in respect of the actual damage caused to the building. The evidenciary value of report of the court commissioner appointed for local inspection stands on a different footing from the evidence of a scientific expert, which is only corroborative. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has also relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of L.V. v/s Naveen Anjum [WP No.49549/2012 (GM-CPC)]. It was wherein the disputed signature of a sale agreement was referred to scientific expert. But, in the present case, some registered deeds have already been executed and when there is sufficient evidence on record to appreciate the disputed issues including the execution of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 documents and its consequential effect, there is no need to refer the disputed signatures and thumb impression to ascertain the execution of those documents. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, it is not necessary to refer the Ex.P1, Ex.D3 and Ex.D16 documents for the scientific examination. However, it is made clear that the above observation is made only to record a finding whether these documents are required to be referred for scientific examination or not. The observations made herein shall not be construed as on merits of the case. On these observations, above point is answered in the negative and the following order is passed:- ORDER I.A.No.IV filed by the defendant under order XXVI rule 10(A) CPC is rejected. (Order prepared through Speech to Text App, carried out corrections, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 4th day of November, 2024). (Vijaya Kumar Rao) X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru. 9. The concerned Court has on rendering cogent reasons that it was not necessary to send the documents overall again for further scientific examination rejects the same. 10. I do not find any perversity in the order of the concerned code to allow the application all over again in a suit that of the year 2011. The suit having been languishing before the concerned code for the last 14 years should necessarily be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29837 WP No. 35133 of 2024 taken to its logical conclusion. The proceedings shall be concluded before the concerned Court within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. Except of the aforesaid observation, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42