ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned common orders passed on I.A.Nos.27 to 30 in O.S.No.16322/2001 on the file of XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner herein instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent/defendant for declaration, injunction, and other reliefs in relation to the suit's immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the respondent/defendant. During the course of trial, the disputed and admitted signature of the petitioner were sent for comparison to the handwriting expert / forensic expert. Pursuant thereto, the forensic / handwriting expert submitted a report to which the petitioner stated that she did not have objections. However, the petitioner filed applications I.A.Nos.24 to 26 for permission to examine the said handwriting expert and also to summon the Sub-Registrar to give evidence as regards the thumb impression register, which was already placed before the Court. By order dated 10.06.2020, the Trial Court dismissed I.A.Nos.24 to 26 filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.06.2020 dismissing I.A.Nos.24 to 26, the petitioner filed an instant application, I.A.Nos.27 to 30 to recall the aforesaid order and to issue necessary directions in this regard. By the impugned common order, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss I.A.Nos.27 to 30, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. The sole grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that, though the petitioner does not have any objections to the report of the forensic expert /

handwriting expert, since the report and the evidence of the forensic expert / handwriting expert has not been marked in evidence and he has not been examined, the same cannot be construed or treated as evidence in the suit, and consequently, it was necessary to summon the Sub-Registrar as well as the handwriting expert for the purpose of marking the said documents in evidence and to examine the handwriting expert.

5. In my considered opinion, the said requirement of summoning the handwriting expert to give evidence and to mark his report and his evidence as exhibits in the suit is not a legal requirement in the light of the provisions contained in Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as held by this Court in the case of Parappa and Others Vs. Bhimappa and Others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1840, wherein it is held as under:

"13. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the report of the Commissioner once submitted to the Court, shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. It is not necessary that the said Commissioner's report is to be marked as an exhibit in the case. Similarly, it is not necessary that the said Commissioner is to be examined, to prove the contents of the said report. It is up to the choice of the party to examine the Commissioner in respect of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report. The examination referred to in the aforesaid provision is to be understood in the context of the word examination referred to in Chapter 10 of the evidence Act. The examination includes examination in chief, cross examination and re-examination. Therefore, if a party to the proceedings has no grievance whatsoever against the report of the Commissioner the question of that party examining the Commissioner would not arise. However, if either of the parties do not accept the correctness of the Commissioner's report, it is open for the them to file their written objections opposing the said Commissioner's report. In order to substantiate the said objections and to request the Court not act on the Commissioner's report, with the per