¹

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.52325 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VARALAKSHMI

W/O. S. BALAKRISHNAN

D/O. MUTHUKRISHNAN

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

R/AT. 3354, III CROSS

6^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK

R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR

BENGALURU-560 040.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SMT. MUNIYAMMA

W/O. LATE SUNDAR

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

2.

SRI T S SRINIVAS

S/O. LATE SUNDAR

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

3.

SMT. T.S. SHOBHA

D/O. LATE SUNDAR

W/O RAMESH

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

4.

SMT. T.S. LATHA

D/O. LATE SUNDAR

W/O B KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

²

5.

KUMARI T.S. MAMATHA

D/O. LATE SUNDAR

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT NO.9

‘C’ OLD RAILWAY QUARTERS

YESHWANTHPURA

BANGALORE-560 022.

6.

SMT. RAMANIBAI

W/O LATE T RAMA

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

R/O. NO.566/1, OLD NO.2/A

7^TH A MAIN CROSS ROAD

PRAKASHNAGAR

BANGALORE-560021.

…

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING

TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 04.02.2016 CALLING

FOR THE FINGER PRINT EXPERT REPORT AND THE

ORDER

DTD:15.07.2016

SUMMONING

THE

HAND

WRITING EXPERT SMT. C.V. JAYADEVI TO GIVE

EVIDENCE, PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL CITY

CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.56/2004 VIDE

ANNEXURE-A & B, I.A.NO.10 AND 11 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the

impugned

order

at

Annexures-A

&

B

dated

04.02.2016 and subsequent impugned order dated

³

15.07.2016 passed by the Trial Court allowing

I.A.Nos.10 and 11 filed by the respondents.

2.

The material on record indicates that it is

not in dispute that respondents are wife and children

of one Sundar and they instituted a suit in

O.S.No.562/2004 against the petitioners as well as

defendant No.1. Incidentally, petitioner was arraigned

as defendant No.2 in the suit and Ramanibai was

arraigned as defendant No.1.

3.

The

said

suit

was

filed

by

the

respondents-plaintiffs for partition and that the sale

deed dated 07.02.2002 was not binding and for other

releifs in respect of suit schedule immovable

properties. During the course of the trial, the

respondents-plaintiffs filed an application I.A.No.10

under Section 151 of CPC to summon the finger print

expert

report

dated

17.02.2013

produced

in

C.C.No.5934/2013 on the file of the 9^th ACMM Court,

Bengaluru.

Respondent

also

filed

one

more

application I.A.No.11 under Order 16 Rule 2 R/w 151

⁴

of CPC to summon the Smt. C.V. Jayadevi, the

handwriting expert who submitted aforesaid finger

print report dated 17.02.2013. Though the said

applications were opposed by the petitioner, the Trial

Court proceeded to pass the impugned orders

allowing the said applications. Aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner is before this Court by way of the

present petition.

4.

Though the several contentions were

urged by the petitioner before the Trial Court as well

as before this Court to oppose the said applications

I.A.Nos.10 and 11 supra, a perusal of the impugned

order passed by the Trial Court will indicate that all

the

contentions

of

the

petitioner

have

been

considered and answered by the Trial Court which

came to the conclusion that report of handwriting

expert and oral evidence of the said handwriting

expert were relevant and necessary for the purpose of

adjudication of the suit in controversy between the

⁵

parties. While allowing the said applications, the Trial

Court held as under:

“8. Point No.1: On careful perusal of the plaint

averments, it discloses that the plaintiffs have filed a

suit against the defendants for partition of the suit

sc