- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4294 WP No. 20119 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20119 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. V. RANGANATH, S/O LATE MR. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO. 57, BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR BANASAWADI BUS-STAND, OPP. MUTTU'S FINANCE, DODDA BANASAWADI, BANGALORE – 560 043 ALSO AT: NO.C001, GROUND FLOOR, C-BLOCK, LIVING WALLS' APARTMENT, PEDDANNA REDDY LAYOUT, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLESAPPA L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. H. SANJEEV REDDY, S/O LATE MR. HANUMAANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. MR. S. ASHOK, S/O MR. H. SANJEEV REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.22, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, R.M. NAGAR MAIN ROAD, DODDA BANASAWADI, BANGALORE – 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4294 WP No. 20119 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XIV ACJM, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, (SCCH-20), ON 12/06/2025, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER, UNDER SECTIONS 45 AND 73 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, IN S.C. NO. 15117/2024, ANNEXURE E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER, IN S.C. NO. 15117/2024, FOR REFERRING THE SIGNATURES FOUND ON EX. P.3, FOR COMPARISON WITH THE ADMITTED SIGNATURES, TO FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, MADIWALA, BANGALORE, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in S.C.No.15117/2024 on the file of the V Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru and XXIV A.C.J.M., Mayohall Unit, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking appointment of a Handwriting Expert/Court Commissioner to compare the admitted signature of the defendant with his disputed signature on the alleged rental agreement dated 01.10.2018 marked as Exhibit P3, was rejected by the trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4294 WP No. 20119 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs has instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for eviction, mesne profits, ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner-defendant, the respondents-plaintiffs has adduced oral and documentary evidence, during the course of which, they marked the alleged rental agreement dated 01.10.2018 as Exhibit P3 on behalf of the plaintiffs. The petitioner not only adduced defence evidence but cross examined the respondents-plaintiffs on all aspects of the matter, interalia contending that the alleged rental agreement dated 01.10.2018 produced by the respondents as Exhibit-P3 was a forged and fabricated document and that the same required to be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner found on his evidence, written statement, vakalathnama etc. The said application having been opposed by the respondents, the trial Court proceeded to pass the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4294 WP No. 20119 of 2025 impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo which reads as under: “MEMO Since the petitioner has filed a written statement contending that he is not a tenant under these Respondents and on the other hand, he is the tenant under Smt.Vijayalakshmi Nathan and Sri. Rajesh P.N. through their Power of Attorney Sri.P.A.Murali from 1.4.2017 and in view of the fact that the said parties have already compromised the matter with these respondents under a Compromise Decree dated 14.9.2023 in O.S.No.16537/2003 and O.S.No. 16919/2005, in respect of property bearing House-list Nos.57 and 57/1, situated at Dodda Banaswadi, K.R.Puram, Bangalore, in all totally measuring 60 x 180 square feet i.e.10800 square feet and the compromise petitions and decree marked at Ex.P17 to P19 and accordingly they have given up their right, title, interest and possession over the above properties in their favour and the suit schedule property is the part of the same and due to changed circumstances, the respondents will not rely upon the above said compromise petition to seek for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property and nor after lease agreement dated 1-10-2018 Ex.P3” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4294 WP No. 20119 of 2025 5. As can be seen from the aforesaid memo filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, it is categorically stated by them that they are not going to place reliance upon the said document at Exhibit-P3 and as such, the question of referring the said document to a Handwriting Expert would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims as regards the alleged rental agreement marked as Exhibit P3, in the light of the specific stance/stand of the respondents that they would not place reliance upon the said document and Exhibit P3 produced by them, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court and the present petition deserves to be disposed of accordingly by issuing certain directions. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned Order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4294 WP No. 20119 of 2025 ii) In the light of the memo dated 19.01.2026 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs referred to supra, the respondents shall not be entitled to place reliance upon the alleged rental agreement at Exhibit P3 dated 01.10.2018 in support of their claim. iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to file an application before the trial Court for a direction to deposit the rent, arrears of rent/rent. If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall provide an opportunity to file objections to the petitioner and dispose of the said application in accordance with law. iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter except Exhibit P3 are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/de-merits of the rival contention. v) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the suit. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44