- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1376 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.K.S.KUMAR, S/O. SHAMIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.128, 4TH CROSS, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 2. SMT. SASHIKALA A H W/O.SRI. PADARAD, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3RD A CROSS, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSIONMAIN ROAD, BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 3. SMT. PADMAVATHI, W/O. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 132, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 4. SRI.THAMMANNA, S/O. VENKATAPPA, REPRESENTED BY G.P.A.HOLDER, K.V.PRAKASH, S/O. VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 124, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 5. SMT. S.A.GIRIJA, D/O. LATE. ANNAIAPPA, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 6. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O. LATE. ANNIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS P5 & P6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.170/1, 1ST CROSS, ROAD, NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE, BANGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 P5 & P6 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. R. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.49/1C2, THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560073 7. SRI.C.RAMESH, S/O.CHENNIAH, AGE MAJOR. 8. SRI.C. GOVINDAPPA, S/O. CHENNAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SRI. PRAKASH B.G., S/O. LATE.C. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 9. RAVIKUMAR, S/O. LATE.C. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS P7 TO P9 ARE R/AT NO. 122, OLD NO.3, VIJAYALAKSYHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIL BABU, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 AND: 1. SMT. MUNINANJAMMA, W/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS 2. SRI. N. RAJANNA, S/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT BAGALAGUNTE, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560073. 3. SRI.V.NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O.VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.53, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION MAIN ROAD, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 4. SRI.G.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, C/O.B.N. PAPANNA, NO. 132, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 5. SRI. RAME GOWDA, S/O NANJUNDAPPA, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, K KRISHNAPPA, S/O GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 24, VENKATAPPA GARDEN, VARALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560022, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SRI. POORNESH S/O.LATE.RAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 R/AT NO.24, VENKATAPPA GARDEN, VARALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560022 6. SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA, S/O.NAJUNDE GOWDA, AGED BOUT 77 YEARS, CHIKKASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057 7. SRI. THAMMANNA S/O. VENKATAPPA, REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER, SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O.MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT 131, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SRI.T.JAGANATH, S/O.LATE. THAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT 131, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 8. SMT. ANASUYAMMA, W/O.RAJANNA, AGE MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 130, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 9. SRI. THYAGARAJA, S/O.NARAYANAPPA, AGE MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.12, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALAKUNTE BANGALORE-560073 10. SMT. RAJESWARI, W/O.MURUGESH, AGE MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 131, OLD NO.9, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 11. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA, W/O. LATE. MUNIRAJU, AGE MAJOR, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 12. SRI.MARANNA S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH, AGE MAJOR RESIDING AT VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALAKUNTE BANGALORE-560073 13. SRI.MALLAIAH S/O.LATE. RAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS M. MAHADEVAIAH, S/O.LATE. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS, RESIDING AT VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALAKUNTE BANGALORE-560073 14. SRI.JAGGADISH G. HEREMUTT, S/O.G.P.HEREMUTT HIRAMUTT, AGE MAJOR, KATHA NO.350, SITE NO.10, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 15. SRI. RAJANNA, S/O. RAMIAH, AGE MAJOR, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 16. SRI.CHANDRAPPA, S/O.RAMIAH, AGE MAJOR, NO.57, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 17. SMT. B.V.NAGARATHNA, W/O.C.H.RANGASWAMY, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.2, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 18. SMT. SEETHAMMA, W/O.SRI.KARNKADE NARASIMHA R/A VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2 ) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET / ASIDE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO. 10 FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF C.P.C DATED 12.12.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25951/2007 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO-HALL BENGALURU (CCH-29) AT ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELILMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “(i) Issue an order of Writ by way of certiorari and or in like nature of writ set aside quash the impugned order on I.A.No.10 filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. dated 12.12.2025 passed in O.S.No.25951/2007 pending on the file of the City Civil and Sessions judge, Mayo-Hall at Bengaluru (CCH-29). (Annexure-G). - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 (ii) Grant pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners, who are defendants Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13(a) and (b) in the said suit in O.S.No.2591/2007 filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs, the petitioners-defendants are contesting the suit and during the course of their evidence, they marked two documents Ex.D-6 and Ex.D-7, pursuant to which they filed the instant application seeking re-opening of the case and referring the said documents Exs.D-6 and 7 to the handwriting expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory to render expert opinion. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application by holding as under: “ORDERS ON IA NO.8/2025, 9/2025 AND 10/2025 Instant applications have been filed by the defendants No.1 to 13, 15, 18 to 24 under section 151 of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 CPC and under order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC requesting the court to reopen the case and appoint the director the Karnataka State Forensic Science laboratory, Madivala, Bengaluru as court commissioner to make Scientific investigation and compare signatures and thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 & 2 in plaint and written statement filed by these plaintiff in O.S.No.2081/2005, 2082/2005, 2083/2005, 2084/2005, 2085/2005, 3061/2005, 3062/2005, 3063/2005, 3064/2005 with list of disputed documents as shown in schedule to application and file report thereon. 2. 2. The applicant who is defendant No.13(a) in affidavit filed in support of application has stated that Smt. Bailamma and her son executed sale deed dated 14.12.1994 in favour of B.M. Ramachandra and Thammana. Thereafter, Thammana executed GPA dated 17.11.1995 in favour of Chennaiah. The Defendants are in possession of property as per General power of Attorney and put up construction over the same. Plaintiffs have no title or possession over suit property. Grand father of defendants Chennaiah purchased property under GPA dated 17.11.1995. Thereafter, Chennaiah executed GPA in favour of father and mother of defendants. The plaintiffs are claiming land in question as agricultural land. The land in question has lost character of agricultural land in the year 1991 itself. The plaintiffs were parties to agreement dated 12.07.1995 and they have received consideration amount upon execution of agreement. The plaintiffs are also parties to memorandum of understanding dated 12.07.1995. The plaintiffs are - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 consenting witnesses to GPA. Hence, to substantiate case of defendants comparison of admitted signature and thumb impression of plaintiffs with disputed signature and thumb impression on documents is very much necessary. On these grounds it is requested to allow applications. 3. The counsel for plaintiffs filed objection contending that, defendants filed present application to drag the proceedings. Now case is set down for arguments. Already counsel for plaintiffs advanced his arguments on merits. Already 18 years have been lapsed from date of filing suit. At this stage of proceedings, applications filed by defendants seeking appointment of expert is not tenable. The defendants have created Ex.D6 and D7 to knock of property of plaintiffs. Those alleged documents are much prior to confirmation of occupation right in respect of suit property in favour of plaintiffs. Under section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, court has power to compare disputed signature with admitted signatures. No grounds made out to allow applications. On these grounds it is requested to reject applications. 4. Heard on both sides and perused the records. 5. The following points arise for my consideration: 1. Whether defendants have made out sufficient grounds to reopen the case and thereby appoint Court Commissioner as prayed in application? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 2. What Order? 6. My answer to the above points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the negative; Point No.2 : As per final order For the following 7. POINT NO.1: It is to be noted here, already matter is posted for arguments. The counsel for plaintiffs has already advanced his arguments. When matter posted for arguments on behalf of counsel for defendants, learned counsel for defendants come up with present applications, requesting the court to appoint the director State Forensic Lab, Madivala, Bengaluru as court commissioner to compare signature and thumb impression of plaintiffs on admitted documents with that of disputed documents which are Ex.D6 and D7 and to submit report thereon which would help for the defendants to substantiate, plaintiffs have executed Ex.D6 and D7 documents. 8. The main contention of plaintiffs is that, Ex.D6 and D7 are created by defendants. Defendants just to drag the proceedings are filing one or the other applications. There is sufficient evidence on record to say these Ex.D6 and D7 are created documents. No purpose will be served in appointing commission as prayed for. 9. It is pertinent to note here that, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that, they are absolute owners of suit property. The plaintiffs have further sought for possession of suit property from defendants. Looking into nature of suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 filed by plaintiffs, it is the plaintiffs on whom onus to prove they are absolute owners of suit property lies on them. The defendants relying on agreement of sale dated 12.07.1995 and memorandum of understanding dated 12.07.1995 to substantiate their contention as taken up in their written statement. 10. Looking into nature of Ex.D6 and D7 as relied by defendants, court has to decide whether defendants can claim their ownership and possession over suit property based on these documents. Without report from expert, these issues can be effectively and conclusively decided by court based on evidence which is already on record. Under these circumstances, no purpose will be served in appointing commission as prayed for. The application filed by defendants is not sustainable. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the negative. 11. POINT NO.2:- In view of discussion as made on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER I.A.Nos.8/2025, 9/2025 and 10/2025 filed by the defendants No.1 to 13, 15, 18 to 24 under section 151 of CPC and under order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. For argument on behalf of defendants. Call on 06.01.2026.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 4. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) Liberty is however reserved in favour of the petitioners and respondents to adduce additional evidence in relation to all aspects of the matter including Exs.D-6 and 7. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6759 WP No. 1376 of 2026 (iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. (iv) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14