2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5016
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ABDUL RAZAK S/O. LADSAB AWATE – Appellant
Versus
SMT. HABIBABEGUM W/O. AZIZSAB MUDNAL SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS – Respondent
WP 100868 of 2025
The court upheld the trial court's decisions regarding the admissibility of local forensic reports and the necessity of original documents for verification, emphasizing the legitimacy of local forensic expertise.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 10A and Order XI Rule 14 - Challenge to orders regarding forensic examination and production of original documents - The court addressed the validity of a report from a local fingerprint expert and the necessity of original sale deed for verification of execution - The trial court's dismissal of the petitioners' applications was upheld. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 12)
(B) Forensic Evidence - The court emphasized the establishment of regional forensic science laboratories to enhance access to forensic services across districts, affirming the legitimacy of local expert reports. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Document Production - The court ruled that the absence of denial from the defendant regarding the execution of a sale deed negates the need for original document production. (Paras 12)
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. The Impugned order dated 21/11/2024 passed in OS. NO.205/2010 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad vide Annexure-M be set aside in the ends of justice.
b. The impugned order dated 24/11/2023 passed in O.S. No.205/2010 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad vide ANNEXURE-Q be set aside in the ends of justice.
c. That, any other reliefs deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be awarded.
2. By way of the above petition, two orders passed in O.S.No.205/2010, have been challenged. O.S.No.205/2010 had been filed by the petitioners seeking for specific performance and certain other reliefs. In the said suit, an application having been filed for referring certain documents to handwriting expert under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity), the same was rejected, which came up before this Court in WP No.100294/2024 and this Court vide order dated 27.01.2024 had referred the matter to the RFSL, Belagavi, which came to be modified vide order dated 01.03.2024 and forwarded to Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bangalore for doing the needful.
3. Though it was sent to the Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bengalore, a report of the Fingerprint Expert at Dharwad has been submitted to the Court. The Fingerprint Expert has been cross-examined and thereafter, an application came to be filed by the petitioners seeking for rejection of the report submitted by the Commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2024. One of the order challenged is the said order.
4. Another application had been filed by the petitioners under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC seeking for a direction to defendant No.2 to produce the original sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 on the ground that defendant No.1 has not executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. The said application came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.11.2023. The said order is also under challenge in the present proceedings.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when this Court had initially directed the matter to be referred to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Belagavi and subsequently, modified it by order dated 01.03.2024 for examination to be conducted by Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala Bangalore, a report of the Fingerprint Expert of Dharwad, could not have been issued. As such, the trial Court ought to have rejected the said report submitted by the Fingerprint Expert at Dharwad. The same not being in accordance with the order passed by this Court.
6. Insofar as the application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC is concerned, his submission is that there is no sale deed which has been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, what has been produced is only the certified copy and for purpose of verification of the fact of execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, the original document is required to be produced. As such, he submits that the request for rejection of the Commissioners’ report as also the application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC, was required to be allowed by trial Court.
7. Having perused the order passed by trial Court as also having perused the report submitted, it is seen that the covering letter is issued by the Superintendent Fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bengaluru enclosing the report of the Fingerprint Expert at Dharwad. There being a Fingerprint Expert at Dharwad, the examination by the said expert at Dharwad, cannot be found fault with.
8. Initially there was only a Forensic Science Laboratory at Bangalore, subsequently there are Regional Forensic Science Laboratories and or Finger Print Bureau’s, which are being established at diffe