- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9324 WP No. 2724 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2724 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, S/O. LATE UGRANARASA @ UGRANARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (RTD. BSNL TECHNICIAN), R/A. 4TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR HANUMAN GENERAL STORE, VIJAYANAGARA, DEVANURU ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN AND DISTRICT-572 102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATHA R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MADALETY, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA AND NARASA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/239, 5TH CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA, SIR M.V.EXTENSION, HOSKOTE TOWN - 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O.LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. SMT. NANDINI, D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9324 WP No. 2724 of 2026 W/O.T.GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. SMT. ROOPA D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, W/O.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. R/A. NO.415, RAMAPURA VILLAGE HOSURU HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 210 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 5. SMT.RADHA, D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 6. SMT. RUCHITA, D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 7. KUM. JYOTHI, D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 4 TO 6 ARE PRESENTLY R/A C/O.T.GOPALA, NO.36, NICHAKUNTE VILLAGE, THONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 213, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 8. SMT.PUTTAKKA, W/O.LATE SRIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 9. KUM.CHAITHRA, D/O. LATE SRIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9324 WP No. 2724 of 2026 10. SRI.NAVEENKUMAR, S/O. LATE SRIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 9 ARE PRESENTLY R/A NO.35, NICHAKUNTE VILLAGE, THONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 213, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 11. SMT.LALITHAMMA, D/O. LATE UGRANARASA @ UGRANARASAPPA, W/O.R.N.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.414, RAMAPURA VILLAGE, HOSURU HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 210, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 12. SMT.GANGARATHNAMMA, D/O. LATE UGRANARASA @ UGRANARASAPPA, W/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A.NO.203, ARASAPURA VILLAGE, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK-572 121, TUMKUR DISTRICT 13. SMT.LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O.LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 14. SRI.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, S/O. LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS BOTH R-13 AND R-14 ARE R/A.NO.3-44, (LATE NARASIMHAPPA’S HOUSE), - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9324 WP No. 2724 of 2026 S.C.COLONY, KODIPALLI VILLAGE YERRABOMMANAHALLI, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT-515 301, ANDHRA PRADESH 15. SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O.LATE NARASIMHAPPA, W/O.ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A.NO.3-213, B.RAYAPURAM, BULLASAMUDRAM, KALLUMARRI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 303 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A G NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2026; NOTICE TO R2 TO R15 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2026 ON IA NO.V IN OS NO.64/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI (ANNEXURE-E). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.10 in O.S.No.64/2021 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri, is directed against the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 whereby the application I.A.No.V filed by defendants Nos. 7 to 12 under Order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9324 WP No. 2724 of 2026 XXVI Rule 10(a) CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the disputed signature of the plaintiff on the document Exhibit D30 with the plaintiff's admitted signature on plaint, vakalathnama, affidavit, etc., was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed notice to respondent Nos.2 to 15 is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant No.10 and other defendants for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence, after completion of which, the defendant Nos.7 to 12 filed the instant application interalia contending that since respondent No.1-plaintiff had disputed his alleged signature on a document styled as a Partition Deed / Panchayath Kararpatra / Parikath – Exhibit D30 dated 18.10.1979, the said document - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9324 WP No. 2724 of 2026 would have to be referred to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff contained in the plaint, vakalathnama, affidavit, etc. The said application-I.A. No.V having been opposed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the said document is an out and out partition deed, which requires registration and therefore, cannot be received in evidence and as such, no useful purpose would be served by referring the said document to the handwriting expert. 4. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court clearly fell in error in adverting to the merits / demerits of the rival contentions on Exhibit D30, which is impermissible in law, at the stage of considering an application for referring the disputed signatures on Exhibit D30 with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff on his vakalathnama, plaint, affidavit etc. At any rate, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if his disputed signatures on Exhibit D30 is sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory/Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison with his admitted signatures especially when the entire expenses in this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9324 WP No. 2724 of 2026 regard would be borne by the petitioner-defendant No.10 and not on the plaintiff. 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that referring the disputed signatures of the plaintiff on Exhibit D30 with his admitted signatures on the plaint, vakalathnama, affidavit, etc., would be necessary for the purpose of elucidating the issues in controversy between the parties and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court has clearly occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.64/2021 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri, is hereby set aside. (iii) The application – I.A.No.V stands allowed. (iv) The Trial Court is directed to immediately send / refer the disputed signature of the plaintiff on Exhibit D30 for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9324 WP No. 2724 of 2026 comparison with his admitted signature contained in his plaint, vakalathnama, affidavit, etc., and secure a report from any of the handwriting expert mentioned in the application filed by defendant Nos.7 to 12 and proceed further and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. (v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12