IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.15880 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI R SRINIVAS S/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A: DESHIHALLI VILLAGE & POST KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPETE TALUK KOLAR-563 162.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SARAVANA.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/A: DESHIHALLI MAJARA PALAVA THIMMANNAHALLI VILLAGE DESHIHALLI POST BANGARPETE TALUK KOLAR-563162. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED ON I.A.NO.13 DATED 18.08.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE, KGF, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order on I.A.No.13 dated 18.08.2021 passed in O.S.No.27/2012, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, KGF (‘the trial Court’ for short).

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant before the trial Court and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.27/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kolar Gold Fields, seeking a decree of specific performance in respect of an alleged agreement of sale dated 11.06.2009. The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement specifically denying execution of the said agreement, contending that the plaintiff is a stranger to him and the suit schedule property and asserting that the signatures and thumb impressions on the said document are forged. The defence categorically stated that no sale agreement dated 11.09.2009 or any other date was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff.

In the course of the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and relied upon several documents. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant at that stage. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.13 on 16.08.2021 under Order XXVI Rule 10(a) of the CPC, seeking reference of the disputed signatures and thumb impression on Ex.P4, the agreement in question, for forensic examination. The plaintiff did not file any objections to the said application. Upon hearing, the trial Court, by order dated 18.08.2021, rejected I.A.No.13 and posted the matter for arguments on 30.08.2021.

Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.08.2021, the defendant has filed this writ petition, contending that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for forensic examination, despite the plaintiff raising no objections.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Order XXVI Rule 10(a) of CPC expressly empowers the Court to refer disputed signatures and left thumb impressions for scientific examination. It is well settled that fingerprint analysis yields conclusive opinions, while handwriting and signature opinions require corroboration. In the instant case, the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance is founded on an 6.3 agreement dated 16.06.2009, which the defendant has categorically denied executing, asserting that both the signatures and the left thumb impression are forged. The resolution of this controversy is central to the suit and necessitates forensic comparison of the disputed and admitted signatures and thumb impressions, which would provide critical evidence for adjudicating the issues framed.

7. It is contended that the trial court, however, dismissed the defendant’s application i.e., I.A.No.13 on the ground that Ex.P4 was laminated and hence, unsuitable for fingerprint and handwriting