Karnataka High Court
Sri R Srinivas vs Sri Ramachandra on 25 September, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
®
DATED THIS THE 25TH 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 -2- 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: -3-
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 -4- 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 -5- 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 analysis, further noting that although safe removal of lamination was possible, such removal was rare. The trial Court opined that sufficient materials were available to dispose of the matter on merits, disregarding the fact that no objections were filed by the plaintiff against forensic examination. The reasoning adopted by the trial Court was speculative and lacked a sound legal or scientific basis, especially when the authenticity of the signatures and thumb impression lies at the heart of the dispute.
8. The order of the trial Court on IA No.13 reads as under:
-6-
The perusal of the disputed document at Ex.P4 goes to show that is laminated one. Under these circumstances it becomes not possible for fingerprint/ handwriting expert to base his/her opinion. Even though there are possibility of safe removal of the lamination, but its chances are very rare, the same may damage/toll that document. Moreover there are other enough materials to dispose off the suit fully and finally on merits. Hence this court is of the opinion that the I.A.No.13 is liable to be rejected. Hence, same is rejected.
9. It is also contended that trial Court's refusal to direct forensic examination amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The question as to whether the signatures and thumb impression on Ex.P4 belong to the defendant cannot be resolved without scientific assistance. The order under challenge, based merely on presumptions and without cogent reasoning, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner's defence and undermines a fair adjudication of the matter. This Court's intervention is therefore warranted to set aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 and direct forensic examination of the disputed document. -7-
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vijaykumar Gulabchand Baldava v. Gautam Prakash Kulkarni dated 28.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.10739/2015.
"4. The petitioner had raised two issues before the Trial Court. Firstly, that certain documents were produced by the plaintiff under the leave of the Court by order dated 09.10.2015 below Exh.189. Secondly, that the Trial Court has rejected application Exh.190 by order dated 09.10.2015, by which, a particular document was not referred to a Forensic Laboratory, for seeking an expert opinion, as regards the age of the ink appearing in the signature of the petitioner and the age of the ink used for writing certain terms on a blank bond paper.
13(4) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the material placed on record. Under provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code a discretion is conferred on the Court to direct scientific examination of any document which in its opinion would be relevant for adjudicating the dispute in question. The Will dated 06/11/1991 is the document of contest between the parties. That document has been laminated and therefore, the defendants were justified in expressing an apprehension that removal of lamination cover could affect the document itself. It is, therefore, that a statement has been made on behalf of the -8- respondent that the expert concerned without removing the lamination would examine the said document in presence of the parties or their representatives. The manner in which such examination would be done is stated in pursis dated 02.08.2017.
13(5) I find that by taking adequate precaution to ensure that the document in question as laminated is handled with care, its scientific examination can be permitted in the light of discretion exercised by the trial Court. The same can be done by following the modality as stated by the expert and mentioned in the pursis dated 02/08/2017. It is to be noted that after the document is examined, the opinion of the expert would be available on record. While according to the defendants it is not possible to determine the age of the ink on the document, according to the expert sought to be appointed by the plaintiff such determination is possible. I find that the value of that report as well as the question whether the method adopted by the expert throws light on the age of the ink on the document are matters which can be considered after the report of the expert is received. The contentions of both the parties in that regard can be kept open for evaluation by the trial court in the light of provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10-A(2) of the Code are concerned."
11. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsels of both parties, on perusal of the material on record and on perusal of the impugned order of the trial -9- Court as could seen from the provisions under order 26 Rule 10(A) of the Code, a discretion is conferred on the court to direct the scientific examination of any document which in its opinion would be relevant for adjudicating the dispute in question. The document has been laminated and therefore the defendants were justified in expressing an apprehension that removal of lamination cover could affect the document itself.
12. So in view of the same, I find that by taking adequate precaution to ensure that the document in question as laminated is handled with care, its scientific examination can be permitted in the light of the discretion exercised by the trial court.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court intends to interfere and set aside the impugned 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.
14. Hence, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order on I.A.No.13 dated 18.08.2021 passed in
- 10 -
O.S.No.27/2012, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, KGF is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with following directions:
a) The trial Court is directed without affecting to the lamination, the disputed document has to be sent for scientific examination.
b) The requisite fee shall be fixed for sending the disputed documents to the expert agency and further issue direction to the said agency to submit its report along with the original document in a sealed envelope and preferably within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the said document along with order of the trial Court.
c) After the report is received by the trial Court, it shall proceed to dispose the main suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the report.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV