Karnataka High Court
Ravi S/O Ramappa Jadamali vs Smt.Rakhibai @ Rakhi W/O Late Yallosa ... on 24 September, 2019
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.113865/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
RAVI S/O RAMAPPA JADAMALI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MARUTI NILAYA,
5TH CROSS, RAJA-RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR-581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.RAKHIBAI @ RAKHI W/O LATE YALLOSA PAWAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: H.NO.889/1,
NEAR MANVI COMPOUND,
HOSANAGARA, RANEBENNUR-581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. RAHUL S/O LATE YALLOSA PAWAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: H.NO.889/1,
NEAR MANVI COMPOUND,
HOSANAGARA, RANEBENNUR-581 115,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.P.HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.10 DATED
07.08.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 2ND ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANEBENNUR IN O.S.NO.112/2015
VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION ON
I.A.NO.10 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND NO.2.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.P.P.Hittalamani, learned counsel undertakes to file vakalath for respondent No.2 within ten days from today.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the trial Court passed on I.A.No.10 whereby the application filed by the defendants under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.P.1, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 to the handwriting expert for opinion as regards the handwriting on the cheque Ex.P.1 has been allowed.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the application has been filed only to drag on the matter and that in terms of Section 20 of the Negotiable 3 Instruments Act once an incomplete document is handed over, the same document could be made complete by the holder in due course or any other person as contemplated under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. It is however contended by the respondent that it is open for the respondent to prove that the incomplete document was misused by the holder in due course or any other person.
5. However, the counsel for the petitioner states that this question as to whether it is an incomplete instrument and making the said document complete as contemplated under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a matter to be decided during the trial. The primary objection of the petitioner appears to be that the respondent is attempting to drag on the matter to the prejudice of the petitioner. 4
6. In light of the submission of both the counsels, the petition is disposed of keeping the contentions of both the parties open without setting aside the impugned order.
However, it is made clear that the trial Court to direct the expert to submit report within a period not late than three months from the date of furnishing the certified copy of this order before the trial Court. It is to be ensured that though the parties have right to file memo of instructions, the trial Court to refer only documents containing admitted signature i.e. signatures found on public document or on document which both the parties admit contains the signature of deceased Yallosa.
It is made clear that Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 containing signature of deceased Yallosa has been obtained from the custody of the Bank and hence for the purpose of comparison of signature on Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 can be 5 referred to the expert. It is also to be noted that the enquiry is to be limited only as regards to handwriting found on the said cheque and to record a finding as to whether the handwriting is that of the deceased Yallosa in terms of the order allowing the said application.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh