ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated

07.01.2023 passed on I.A.No.16 filed by respondents-defendants in O.S.No.157/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, whereby the trial Court allowed the said application and directed appointment of a Court Commissioner/Forensic Expert to verify the authenticity and genuineness of documents at Ex.D14 and Ex.P24 produced by the parties.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner-

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents- defendants for partition and separate possession for the alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and the said suit is being contested by the respondents.

4. During the course of evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and Ex.P24 was marked on her behalf. The respondents disputed the genuineness, legality, validity and correctness of Ex.P24 produced by the petitioner. Subsequently, during the course of their evidence, the respondents-defendants produced one more document, which is marked at Ex.D14. However, the genuineness, legality, validity and correctness of Ex.D14 has been seriously disputed by the petitioner-plaintiff. In other words, while the petitioner-plaintiff contends that Ex.D14 is a tampered and concocted document, the respondents-defendants contend that Ex.P24 is a concocted and tampered document. Under these circumstances, upon the instant application-I.A.No.16 filed by respondent No.2-defendant No.2, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.16 by holding as under:

"7.Point No.1:- Admittedly, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants seeking decree for partition and separate possession. I have perused the pleadings of both parties. The defendants have took a specific defence that plaintiff has relinquished her right over suit properties by receiving Rs.25,00,000/- and executing agreement dated 21- 08-2010. Admittedly, the present application is filed by the 2nd defendant when case was at the stage of further evidence of the defendants. The present application is filed for seeking appointment of Commissioner to examine Ex.P-24 and Ex.D-14 to decide their authenticity and genuinity. According to the defendants under the agreement dated 21-08-2010 the plaintiff has relinquished her right over the suit property and she had agreed to execute the Relinquish deed after received balance amount from the defendant. It is also case of the defendants that by using original document the plaintiff converted the same through electronically editing and produced the document in the style as "MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ DzÁAiÀÄ «¨sÀd£À M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁgÄÀ ¥ÀvÀæ". Admittedly, the 2nd defendant had filed I.A.No.11 seeking permission to mark the said document dated 21-08-2010 which is xerox copy as a secondary evidence. The plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.12 to receive the document in the style as "MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ DzÁAiÀÄ «¨sÀd£À M¥àAÀ z À PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥vÀ Àæ" which is xerox copy as a secondary evidence. As per the order dated 05-01-2021 the defendant No.1 and plaintiff respectively were permitted to mark the said respective documents as a secondary evidence observing that geninity of these documents cannot be decided at that stage. And, it has to be decided by only on marking the documents and subjected for cross-examination of the plaintiff and defendants.

8. In order to decide this application, the relevant portion of Ex.P-24 at page.No.3 is to be reproduced here which reads thus:- "¸ÀzÀj M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ jÃvÁå JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÁnðUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÁzÀ JA.¹.UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ DzÁAiÀÄzÀ «¨sÀd£É¬ÄAzÀ §AzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀªÀĸÀÛ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ G½¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj D¹ÛUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß »¸ÉìUÉ §gÄÀ ªÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À

32,50,000 ¨Á§ÄÛ EA¢£ªÀ ÀgÉUÉ ¨ÉˉÉ jÃvÁå gÀÆ. /- (ªÀÄƪÀvÉÛÃgÀqÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ LªÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«g À gÀÆ¥À¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D ºÀt