- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.10900/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO S/O LATE B.S. VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS SINCE DEAD, REP. BY HIS LR'S. a) SMT. MANONMANI W/O LATE B.V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT. #20, 2ND MAIN DEEPANAGARA, BOGADI MYSORE, KERGALLI, MYSORE KARNATAKA-570026. b) SMT. ANUSHA RAO W/O NAGESH H.S. D/O LATE B.V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. #402, 7TH MAIN BAGODI RAILWAY LAYOUT BAGODI, MYSORE KARNATAKA-570026. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARISH H.V. ADV., FOR P1 (a & b)) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE C. GOPALAIAH Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 2. SRI. P.G. SRINIVASA S/O LATE C. GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. SMT.SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O LATE C. GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. NO.14A, 2ND CROSS GOVINDAREDDY LAYOUT, NEAR ARAKERE MYCHO LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560076. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.G. RAVISHANKAR, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 V/O/DTD:18.06.2025 NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.11.12.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA IN O.S.NO.22/2016 ON IA NO.XVI FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(a) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION (IA NO.XVII) FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(a) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC ON ITS FILE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging Order dated 11.12.2019 passed on I.A.No.16 filed by the petitioner- plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.22/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract under the agreement of sale dated 26.09.1993 and also sought declaratory relief that the alleged gift deed dated 26.11.2011 is not binding on the plaintiff in respect of suit 'D' schedule 60 site properties and other reliefs. It is submitted that the respondents entered appearance and filed objections. After conclusion of the trial, the plaintiff moved an application seeking to refer the Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-24 to the handwriting expert to compare the signature found on those documents. It is further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 submitted that one late C.Gopalaiah has executed the agreement of sale in question and as per Ex.P-19 the receipt for having received the consideration. It is also submitted that now the legal heirs of late C.Gopalaiah are disputing the existence of the agreement, hence it necessitated the plaintiff to file an application seeking to compare the signature of late C.Gopalaiah found on Ex.P- 19, which is disputed by the other side, with the signature of late C.Gopalaiah found on Ex.P-24, which is an admitted document by other side. It is contended that the trial Court under the impugned order erroneously rejected the said application on the ground that the late C.Gopalaiah has not signed the sale deed before the Court and such a finding is unsustainable. Hence, he seeks to allow the said application by allowing this petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.A.G.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2, supports the order of the trial Court and submits that though the trial Court may not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 have assigned detailed reasons, what is required to be seen is that the plaintiff's intent to enforce the alleged agreement executed by late C.Gopalaiah in the year 1993 by filing the suit in 2016. It is further submitted that the document at Ex.P-19 claims to be a receipt which is produced along with the statement of objections and memo of submission. The said document is not a readable document. Hence, unless the plaintiff proves the contents of the said document, question of comparing the signature would not arise. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has adduced the evidence of the witnesses as PWs-2 and 3, they both have clearly stated that it is not the receipt and it is only the stamp paper on demand and another witness says that it is a sale deed. Hence, the attempt of filing the present application seeking for expert's opinion is nothing but abuse of process of law and dragging the proceedings further. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, meticulously perused material available on record. 5. The petitioner, who is a plaintiff in O.S.No.22/2016 filed a suit seeking for declaration that the alleged gift deed dated 26.11.2011 is not binding on the plaintiff in respect of suit 'D' schedule 60 site properties and further relief for enforcement of the agreement of sale dated 26.09.1993 and other reliefs. It is to be noticed that the said suit is filed against the legal heirs of one late Sri.C.Gopalaiah. The plaint averment and other materials indicate that the plaintiff is putting forth his case before the trial Court, that one late C.Gopalaiah has executed agreement of sale on 26.09.1993 and based on such agreement of sale he has received consideration as per Ex.P-19, which is the receipt for having received the part consideration. The said case of the plaintiff has been denied by the defendants by filing detailed written statement. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 examined himself as PW-1 and got examined PWs-2 and PW-3 as witnesses to substantiate his contention before the trial court. 6. After the conclusion of the trial, plaintiff moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to refer Ex.P-19 and Ex.P- 24 to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures found on those documents. It is not in dispute that the defendants have not disputed Ex.P-24, the sale deed dated 20.06.1995 and in the said sale deed C.Gopalaiah's signature is found. The dispute is with regard to Ex.P-19 and signature recorded on the said document. It is also to be noticed that Ex.P-19 is the alleged receipt dated 20.05.1995, wherein the plaintiff claims that the said receipt is signed by late Sri.C.Gopalaiah which was received as the part sale consideration. The receipt of part sale consideration and execution of the agreement by late Sri.C.Gopalaiah needs to be proved before the trial Court by the plaintiff. In order to discharge the said burden, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 plaintiff examined two attesting witnesses to Ex.P-19. A perusal of the evidence, in its entirety, of PWs-2 and 3 indicate that they are the signatories to Ex.P-19, however, the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, oral testimony of PWs-2 and 3 is required to be done by the trial Court at the time of rendering the judgment. At this stage, it is to be noticed that when the other side is disputing the signature of late Sri.C.Gopalaiah on Ex.P-19, though the document is of the year 1995, there is no impediment to refer the document for handwriting expert for the simple reason that the admitted signature of the late Sri.C.Gopalaiah is found on the sale deed dated 20.06.1995, whereas the alleged receipt Ex.P-19 is dated 20.05.1995. The input of the handwriting expert would definitely help the trial Court in adjudicating the dispute between the parties with regard to the correctness of the assertion made by the plaintiff in the plaint with regard to the execution of the agreement by late Sri.C.Gopalaiah and his alleged signature on Ex.P-19. In my considered - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in recording incorrect finding with regard to the fact that the said late Sri.C.Gopalaiah had not signed the sale deed in the Court and therefore, rejected the application. What is required to be noticed is that by allowing the application for comparing the signature, the opinion of the expert would aid the trial Court in arriving at a correct conclusion. Thus, in my considered view the application filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.16 deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 11.12.2019 passed on I.A.No.16 in O.S.No.22/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.16 is allowed. The trial Court is directed to refer Ex.P-19 and Ex.P- 24 to the handwriting expert to compare the signature as sought in the application. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12876 W.P. No.10900/2020 It is made clear that the finding recorded by this Court is limited to the adjudication of the present petition and the trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34