IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20194 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI S N PARAMESHWARA S/O LATE. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. S. P. VENKATESH S/O S. N. PARAMESHWARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH R/AT. 58, 6^TH CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK, SHAKTHIGANAPATHINAGAR, BASAWESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI P K SHAM Dig itally S/O LATE P. S. KRISHNA MURTHY signed by AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS CHANDANA R/AT. NO. 525, ANIKETHANA MAIN ROAD, B M KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE – 570 023.

Location: …RESPONDENT High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-21) IN IA NO. 12 IN O.S. NO. 25017/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.25017/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed on I.A.No. 12 by the IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said application filed by the respondent- plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC to refer the admitted signatures of the defendant - S. N. Parameswara on Exs. P1 and P3 for comparison with his disputed signatures on Exs.P4, P5, P6, P9, P10 and P16 and also to refer the admitted signature of DW-1 – S.P.Venkatesh, who is the son of defendant, with his disputed signatures on Exs.P8 and P9 was allowed by the trial Court.

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

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 10.06.2016 and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner-defendant, the respondent-

plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and three witnesses and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P28 were marked on his behalf and they were cross-examined by the petitioner-defendant. Thereafter, the petitioner examined his son as DW-1, who during the course of his cross-examination disputed the signatures of his father (defendant) on Exs.P4, P5, P6, P9, P10 and P16; so also, DW-1 disputed his own alleged signatures on Exs.P8 and P9 produced by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff moved the instant application I.A.No.12 under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC for appointment of Handwriting expert to compare the admitted signatures of the defendant on Exs.P1 and P3 with his disputed signatures on Exs.P4, P5, P6, P7, P9, P10 and P16 as well as to compare the admitted signatures of DW-1 with his disputed signatures found on Exs.P8 and P9.

4. By the impugned order, the trial Court came to the conclusion that since the material on record contained both the admitted and disputed signatures of both the defendant as well as his son DW-1, in order to elucidate the issues in controversy between the parties, it would be just and appropriate to refer the disputed signatures for comparison with the admitted signatures to a Handwriting expert by holding as under;

ORDERS ON I.ANO.XII The Applicant/Plaintiff has filed IA No.XII under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of the CPC with a prayer to refer the admitted signatures of the defendant in Ex.P1 and P3 for comparison with disputed signatures of the defendant in Ex.P4,5,6,9,10 and 16 and also to refer the admitted signature of DW.1 found in the evidence recorded before this court with disputed signature of DW.1 in Ex.P8 and 9 to