The court ruled that a scientific examination of documents is unnecessary when sufficient direct evidence exists, emphasizing the need for timely resolution of long-standing cases.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order on I.A.No.4 dated 4.11.2024 passed in O.S.No. 5226/2011 by the City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-26).

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief german is as follows:

The respondent is the plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.5226/2011 for declaration and possession. The said suit progresses further. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the claim of the petitioner or the defense of the respondent. The issue revolves around allowing of an application in IA No. 6 seeking reference of certain documents for an expert opinion by invoking Order 26 Rule 10-A r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The said application is filed by the present petitioner comes to be resisted by the respondent-plaintiff. The concerned Court after considering the objections of the respondent-plaintiff rejects the application. The rejection of the application is what has driven the petitioner-defendant to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coordinate bench of this Court had earlier rejected the challenge to an application filed by the plaintiff and had reserved liberty to file necessary application and pursue the application that had already been filed by the defendant before the concerned court. Taking cue from the said order the application is pursued and the pursuit of which leads to the rejection of the application. The learned counsel further submits that the documents that are disputed are necessary to be sent to a handwriting expert as these are the disputed documents and not admitted.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits earlier the documents that are now being sought to be sent for forensic examination or handwriting expert were already sent and there is a report before the concerned court. The subject application is preferred seeking taking the documents to exhibits Ex.P1, Ex.D3 and Ex.D.16 to be sent to forensic examination or to handwriting expert is only a ruse to drag the proceedings further, he would seek for dismissal of the petition.

6. Therefore, I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

7. The issue lies in a narrow compasses to whether the disputed documents as sought for should be permitted to be referred to the handwriting expert.

8. The application filed by the plaintiff results in, it being allowed of which was challenged by the defendant before this Court in W.P.No.13821 of 2021. This Court by the following order rejected the challenge by the defendant of the application of allowing of the application filed by the plaintiff while so observing the concerned court also notices the fact that the petitioner-defendant had filed an application which is already pending that is what is now pursued as observed here in above. The concerned Court by the following order rejects the application which reads as follows:

"4. Heard the arguments.

5. The point for determination of the Court is-"Whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to appoint a court commissioner and it is necessary for the purpose of elucidating the matter in dispute between the parties?"

6. Finding of this Court on the above point is in the negative, for the following:- -: REASONS:-

7. The plaintiff has filed the suit to declare that the sale dated 31.03.2011 executed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and also for possession of suit schedule property from the defendant to her. It is the contention of the plaintiff that one V. Sachithanandam, who is th