Karnataka High Court
Sri B N Manjunatha vs Sri K M Rajegowda on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21821
W.P. No.11076/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.11076/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.N. MANJUNATHA
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O BYRANDAHALLY VILLAGE
VEMAGAL HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK-563101
Digitally signed KOLAR DISTRICT.
by RUPA V ...PETITIONER
Location: High (BY SMT. HARSHITHAMANI, ADV., FOR
Court of SRI. VASANTH KUMAR K.M. ADV.,)
karnataka
AND:
1. SRI. K.M. RAJEGOWDA
S/O M. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O KAMANDAHALLY VILLAGE
KYALANUR POST, KOLAR TALUK-563101.
2. SMT. VIMALAMMA
D/O LATE M. NARAYANAPPA
W/O SRI. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O CHELUVANAHALLY VILLAGE
ARABIKOTHANUR POST, KOLAR TALUK-563101.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE M. NARAYANAPPA
W/O BYREDDY ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R.O VEMAGAL VILLAGE & POST
KOLAR TALUK-563101.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21821
W.P. No.11076/2019
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 21.02.2019 MADE ON I.A. FILED UNDER
ORDER 12 RULE 8 OF C.P.C. R/W SEC.151 OF C.P.C. IN
O.S.NO.91/2017 PASSED BY THE IST ADDL SR. CIVIL JUDGE,
KOLAR, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW,
EQUITY AND JUSTICE VIDE ANNX-H & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or
order or direction quashing the order dated 21.2.2019
made on I.A.filed under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC r/w
Sec.151 of CPC in O.S.No.91/2017 passed by the 1st
Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Kolar, being arbitrary, erroneous
and opposed to law, equity and justice (Annexure-H).
ii) Allow I.A. filed by the petitioner herein under
Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC r/w Sec.151 of CPC in
O.S.No.91/2017 pending on the file of 1st Addl. Sr.
Civil Judge, Kolar in the terms prayed for therein.
2. Heard.
NC: 2025:KHC:21821
HC-KAR
3. Smt.Harshithamani, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed O.S. No.91/2017
seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of
sale dated 05.03.2016 executed by one late M.Narayananappa,
father of the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents
have filed written statement denying the execution of sale
deed, more particularly the signature of late M.Narayanappa.
Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 8
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to issue notice to
the Range Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Kolar, to produce the
resolution book of the Village Forest Committee of
Kamandahally Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, for
comparison of the signature of late M.Narayananappa, who was
one of the Directors of the said Committee with the signature
found in the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016. However,
the Trial Court proceeded to reject the said application on the
ground that the documents at Exs.P8 and P9 which are also
marked as Exs.D8 and D9 are available on record for
comparison and securing such record is unnecessary. The
finding of the Trial Court that the Village Forest Committee
does not seem to be a statutory body that obeys the rules and
NC: 2025:KHC:21821
HC-KAR
regulations, is factually incorrect as the Committee has been
constituted under Section 6 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj
and Panchayatraj Act, 1993. Admittedly, late
M.Narayananappa, who is one of the Directors of the said
Committee has signed the resolutions and thus, the admitted
signature of late M.Narayanappa is required to be sent for
expert's opinion so that it aids the parties to settle the dispute.
Hence, she seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the
impugned order and allowing the application filed under Order
XII Rule 8 of the CPC.
4. Though served, the respondents are unrepresented.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submission
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.91/2017
seeking the relief of judgment and decree against the
respondents to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the
suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner as per the
NC: 2025:KHC:21821
HC-KAR
agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016. The respondents in the
suit filed a detailed written statement. The averments in the
written statement indicate that the respondents have denied
the execution of the agreement of sale by late M.Narayanappa,
father of the respondents and also the signature found on the
said agreement of sale. The petitioner has adduced the
evidence and thereafter respondent No.1 examined himself as
PW-1. In the cross examination, it is admitted that the father
of the respondents late M.Narayananappa was one of the
Directors of the Village Forest Committee of Kamandahally
Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk. In view of the said
admission in the cross-examination, the petitioner filed an
application under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC seeking to issue
notice to the Range Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Kolar to
produce the resolution book of the said Committee, wherein the
said late M.Narayananappa has signed the resolution. The
respondents filed objections to the said application by
contending that the respondents have produced the registered
sale deed dated 20.03.2002 executed by Sri.H.Anjanappa in
favour of late M.Narayanappa as per Ex.D8. Hence, it is not
necessary to summon the document sought in the said
NC: 2025:KHC:21821
HC-KAR
application. The Trial Court, considering the same has rejected
the application. It is not in dispute that the petitioner intends
to execute the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016. It is
always open to the petitioner to examine the witnesses to the
agreement and also the documents at Exs.D8 and D9 which are
available to compare the signature of late M.Narayanappa with
the disputed signature. Hence, I am of the considered view
that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the
application for summoning the documents. Learned counsel for
the petitioner sought to justify that the signature found at
Annexure-F which is the certified copy of the resolution of the
said Committee. However, the said document is not admitted
by the respondents in any of the proceedings. Hence, it cannot
be said that the document at Annexure-F i.e. the resolution of
the aforesaid Committee is an admitted document. The Trial
Court, considering the registered sale deed which is available
on record to compare the signature of late M.Narayanappa, has
rightly rejected the application. I do not find any error in the
impugned order calling for interference in this petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:21821
HC-KAR
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the petitioner has produced the decision of Madras High Court
in the case of AMMANI AMMAL Vs. DHANALAKSHMI BANK
LTD., TIRUPPUR AND ORS.1 and the decision of Andhra
Pradesh High Court in the case of BANDE SIVA SHANKARA
SRINIVASA PRASAD Vs. RAVI SURYA PRAKASH BABU
AND ORS.2 I have meticulously perused the said judgments.
It is not in dispute that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, permits the Court to compare the disputed signature with
the admitted signature. In the case on hand, the disputed
signature in the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2016 is
available to the Court to compare with Exs.P8 and P9 or Exs.D8
and D9 which are the admitted signatures. Hence, the
aforesaid decision relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner would not hold water in any way.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
(2008) 1 CTC 816
AIR 2016 HYD 118
NC: 2025:KHC:21821
HC-KAR
ORDER
The petition is devoid of merits and the same is
accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
