[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri J Sreenivas vs Mr Barakat Ahmed Saleem on 17 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
WP No. 32769 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 32769 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI J SREENIVAS
S/O, LATE B JAGANATH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO 86, SBI OFFICERS RESIDENCY,
BEHIND BWSSB RESERVOR,
KODICHIKKANAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560076
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH H.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR BARAKAT AHMED SALEEM
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
by
SHARADAVANI B S/O MR. M.A. HALEEM,
Location: High
Court of R/AT.NO. 16/146, 6TH CROSS,
Karnataka
3RD MAIN, WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560027.
2. SMT. J.SAVITHRI
W/O. LATE.B.JAGANNATH,
R/AT. NO.4, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS,
SHANKARA LAYOUT, NAJAMBHA AGRAHARA,
T.R. MILL, BANGALORE-560018.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
WP No. 32769 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SRI. J. RAJAKANTH,
S/O. LATE. JAGANNATH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.4, 1ST FLOOR, 1 CROSS,
SHANKARA LAYOUT, NAJAMBHA AGRAHARA,
T.R. MILL, BANGALORE-560018.
4. SRI. J. JAIKANTH,
S/O, LATE. JAGANNATH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.21, 20TH STREET,
DAE TOWNSHIP, KALPAKKAM,
TAMIL NADU 603102.
5. SMT. J. KUSUMA
D/O LATE JAGANNATH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT.NO. 142, 1ST FLOOR,
NAGASHETTYHALLI,
BANGALORE-560094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025, NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 24.10.2024 PASSED BY THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN
O.S.NO.7427/2014 ON I.A.NO.XI, FILED UNDER ORDER 26
RULE 10(a) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION (I.A.NO.XI), FILED
UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(a) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, ON
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
WP No. 32769 of 2024
HC-KAR
ITS FILE.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.7427/2014,
PENDING DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the defendants in OS No. 7427/2014
is directed against the impugned order passed on IA No.
11 by the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru dated 24.10.2024 whereby the said application
filed by the petitioner - defendant No. 2 under Order XXVI
Rule 10 (a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as CPC for short) to refer the admitted
signatures of late B. Jagannath found on Ex.P.1, original
sale agreement dated 22.02.2023 for comparison with the
alleged disputed signatures of late Jagannath in Ex.P.3,
original affidavit dated for 18.09.2008, for comparison and
to submit a report was rejected by the trial Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the material on record. For the order proposed,
notice to respondents No.2 to 5 is dispensed with.
3. A perusal of the material on record indicates
that the respondent - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit
against the petitioner - defendant no. 2 and other
defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in
relation to the suit schedule immovable property and for
other reliefs. In this context, the plaint averments disclose
that the respondent plaintiff specifically contends that the
late B. Jagannath, the father of the petitioner had
executed a sale agreement dated 22.02.2003 as well as
two affidavits dated 16.06.2004 and 18.09.2008 in favour
of the respondent - plaintiff. In the written statement, the
petitioner - defendant no. 2 disputed and denied all the
aforesaid three documents produced by the plaintiff.
However, during the course of evidence of PW-1 and DW-
1, the petitioner specifically contended that the alleged
signatures of late Jagannath on the sale agreement -
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
HC-KAR
Ex.P1 dated 22.02.2004 and the affidavit-Exs. P2 dated
16.06.2004 was taken on blank papers, while the alleged
signature of Late Jagannath on Ex.P3, another affidavit
dated 18.09.2008 was not that of Late Jagannath. In other
words, the signatures of Late Jagannath on the sale
agreement at Ex.P1 dated 22.02.2003 and the affidavit
Ex.P2 dated 16.06.2004 were admitted by the petitioner,
who however disputed the alleged signature of Late
Jagannath in the affidavit dated 18.09.2008 marked as
Ex.P3 in the suit.
4. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed
the instant application seeking referring of the disputed
signatures found on Ex.P3 with the admitted signatures
found on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to a handwriting expert for the
purpose of comparison and obtaining a report in this
regard. The said application having been opposed by the
plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned
order dismissing the application on the ground that Ex.P3
was not relevant or material for the purpose of
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
HC-KAR
adjudication of the issues in controversy between the
parties. In my considered opinion the said reasoning of the
trial Court and a finding recorded by it by adverting to the
merits and relevance of the documents was incorrect, was
an incorrect approach adopted by the trial Court and
contrary to the principles underlying Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act,1872 and Order XXVI Rule 10A of
CPC, which contemplate that whenever admitted
signatures and disputed signatures on two different
documents are produced by the parties, it would be
necessary to send the disputed signatures for comparison
with the admitted signatures by invoking the said
provisions and failure to appreciate this has resulted in
erroneous conclusion.
5. In any event, since the respondent would be
entitled to file objections to the report of the Court
Commissioner /handwriting expert and also
examine/cross-examine him if he so desires, it cannot be
said that any prejudice will be caused to the respondent if
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
HC-KAR
the admitted signatures of late Jagannath found in Ex.P1
and Ex.P2 are sent to a handwriting expert/forensic
science laboratory for comparison with his disputed
signatures found on Ex.P3.
6. It is also pertinent to note that the comparison
of the disputed signatures on Ex.P3 with the admitted
signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 is relevant, material and
germane for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in
controversy between the parties, which has also not been
noticed by the trial Court while passing the impugned
order, which warrants interference by this Court in the
present petition. Under these circumstances, I am of the
view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court
dismissing IA No. 11 has occasioned failure of justice
warranting interference by this Court in the present
petition.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 24.10.2024 is hereby set
aside.
iii. IA No. 11 filed by the petitioner defendant no. 2
is hereby allowed.
iv. The trial Court is directed to refer the admitted
signatures of Late Jagannath on Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2 and any other document available in the
records for comparison with the disputed
signature of Late Jagannath contained in Ex.P3
to the following Court Commissioner/
handwriting expert/ Forensic Science
Laboratory.
M/s.Truth Labs,
2nd Floor, Primus One,
28/2, Main Road,
Siddapura, Whitefield,
Bengaluru -560 066
NC: 2026:KHC:9782
HC-KAR
v. The trial Court is directed to secure a report
from the handwriting expert and proceed
further in accordance with law.
vi. Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties
to file objections to the Commissioner's report
and examine/cross-examine him if they so
desire.
vii. All rival contentions and all aspects of the
matter are kept open and no opinion is
expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival
contentions.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BVK
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 10
