The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.5723/1996 on the

file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore is before this Court,

questioning order dated 31.08.2023 rejecting I.A.No.8

filed under Sections 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act read

with Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Anantharam G.R. for

petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel Sri.B.N.Prakash for

respondent No.2/defendant No.2 before the trial Court.

Perused the writ petition papers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is one for declaration, to

declare Deed of Release dated 28.02.1987 executed by

defendants Nos.3 to 5 in favour of husband of defendant

No.1 and father of defendant No.2 as null and void,

- 5 -

ineffective

and

not

binding

on

the

plaintiff

and

consequential injunction. It is submitted that when the

suit was at the stage of cross-examination of defendant

No.2, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.8 under Sections

45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Order XXVI Rule10-A

of CPC to refer the admitted signatures’ samples of second

defendant

along

with

her

admitted

signature

on

vakalathnama dated 05.05.2022 and affidavit filed on

11.07.2023 to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,

Madiwala,

Bengaluru

for

opinion

after

scientific

examination, comparison with the disputed signatures

marked as Ex.P47(a), (b), (c), and (d) found on the

purported written statement marked as Ex.P47 and that

found on purported vakalath marked as Ex.D48.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the signature found on written statement is not the

signature of defendant No.2 and it is forged one. Learned

counsel inviting attention of this Court to deposition of

D.W.2 particularly paragraph 23 would submit that the

- 6 -

defendant No.2 has admitted variation of signatures on

Ex.P47, Ex.P48 and Ex.P49. The written statement is filed

on 26.06.2010 whereas on the said date respondent

No.2/defendant No.2 was at Florida which is admitted by

her in her deposition. Therefore, it is submitted that

defendant No.2 could not have filed written statement on

the said date before the Court. Hence, learned counsel

would pray for referring the signatures found on the

written statement of defendant No.2 with the admitted

signatures of defendant No.2 for scientific examination.

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.B.N.Prakash for

respondent No.2/defendant No.2 would submit that

respondent

No.2/defendant

No.2

has

admitted

her

signatures on the written statement as well as vakalath

filed before the Court and when defendant No.2 has no

grievance with regard to the written statement or

signature

found

on

the

written

statement,

the

petitioner/plaintiff cannot have any grievance. The written

statement which is taken on record as Annexure-D would

- 7 -

in no way prejudices the case of the petitioner/plaintiff.

Thus, he justifies the order passed by the trial Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view

that the petitioner has not made out any ground to

interfere

with

the

impugned

order.

Moreover,

the

impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any

material irregularity so as to warrant interference under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this

Court

would

exercise

supervisory

jurisdiction

and

supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error or fact

or even a legal flaw when it is supported by reasons.

Normally, High Curt would not substitute its own decision

for that of trial Court. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly in

appropriate cases. High Court can exercise jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if the finding

is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly

- 8 -

come to such a conclusion that Trial Court has come to

(GARMENT CRAFT V/S. PRAKASH CHAND GOEL¹).

In the case on hand, defendant No