IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10886 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. HARISH S. H., SON OF HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2798, D BLOCK, 12^TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 010.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. R. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT VARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, GULURU HOBLI, Digitally signed TUMUKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT, by CHANDANA B M PIN CODE – 572 122.

Location: H igh Court of …RESPONDENT Karnataka (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU IN O.S.NO.506/2018 UPON I.A UNDER SECTION 45 OF EVIDENCE ACT; b) ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-D IN O.S.NO.506/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY c) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OF WHATSOEVER NATURE, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO BE GRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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.506/2018 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, is directed against the impugned order dated 11.02.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to refer the disputed signatures on Ex.P-1 on the cheque to a handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner -defendant was rejected 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 recovery of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest and for other reliefs. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.932329 pertaining to his account drawn on Canara Bank, Gowribidanur Branch dated 25.07.2016. The petitioner- defendant filed his written statement contesting the suit interalia disputing and denying his alleged signatures on the aforesaid cheque, which was marked as Ex.P-1 during the evidence of PW-1. After partly cross examining PW-1, the petitioner filed the instant application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking reference of the disputed signatures of the petitioner with his admitted signatures on his vakalathnama, written statement, affidavit etc. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application for the reasons that no grounds had been made out by the petitioner seeking reference under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record will indicate that the trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that while the petitioner specifically denied his signature on the alleged cheque produced at Ex.P-1, his vakalathnama, written statement, affidavit etc., contains his admitted signatures. Under these circumstances, in order to elucidate the issues in controversy between the parties, it would be just and appropriate to refer the disputed signature of the petitioner on Ex.P-1, cheque for comparison with his admitted signature on his vakalathnama, written statement, affidavit etc., to a handwriting expert for the purpose of securing a report a