[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt K Rukmini vs Sri N Nagaraju on 11 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14951
W.P. No.11139/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.11139/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. K. RUKMINI
W/O SRI. R.V. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
M/S. SRI. BHUVANESH ENGINEERING WORKS
R/AT NO.C-17, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.
Digitally signed by
ARSHIFA BAHAR ...PETITIONER
KHANAM
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.,)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI. N. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE S.M. RAMAKRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.46, 1ST FLOOR
3RD MAIN ROAD
SRIKANTESHWARA NAGARA
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560096.
2. SMT. MANJULA
W/O SRI. D.P. PATHI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT OLD NO.1094/66
NEW NO.1079, 9TH MAIN
6TH CROSS, PRAKASHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560021.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14951
W.P. No.11139/2019
HC-KAR
3. SRI. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT OLD NO.1094/66
NEW NO.1079, 9TH MAIN
6TH CROSS, PRAKASHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LOKESH S.G. ADV., FOR R1
SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H.P. ADV., FOR R2
NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S V/O/DTD:01.09.2025)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 14.01.2019 ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.7212/2014 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU VIDE
ANNX-D AND ALLOW IA NO.II AS PRAYED FOR & 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 challenging the order dated
14.01.2019 passed on IA.No.II in OS.No.7212/2014 by the
Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (for short 'the trial
Court').
2. Sri.C.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-defendant
NC: 2026:KHC:14951
HC-KAR
No.1 had filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A
r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short
'CPC') seeking to refer the signature found in General
Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA') dated 21.07.1999,
which is claimed to have been executed by her in favour of
defendant No.2, to a handwriting expert. However, the
said application came to be rejected by the trial Court
without properly appreciating the scope of law. It is
submitted that the petitioner-defendant No.1 secured an
opinion on the disputed GPA dated 21.07.1999 from the
Association of Handwriting and Forensic Science India
(AHFS), which has clearly opined on the disputed
signature. However, none of these aspects were
considered by the trial Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the
petition.
3. Per contra, Sri.Lokesh S.G., learned counsel for
respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial
Court and submits that the application filed by the
petitioner is bereft of any details. It is submitted that the
NC: 2026:KHC:14951
HC-KAR
petitioner has not stated with regard to which signature is
the admitted signature in the document that can be used
to be compared with the disputed signature. It is further
submitted that the disputed signature i.e. Ex.P10 was
marked through PW1 but the petitioner herein has not
cross-examined the said witness. It is also submitted that
the application for expert reference is filed at the stage of
the defendant's evidence and filing of such an application
at such a belated stage amounts to abuse of process of
law intended to prolong the proceedings. Hence, he seeks
to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides
and meticulously perused the material available on record.
5. The material on record indicates that the
respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.7212/2014 against
the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for declaration
of the ownership of the suit schedule property and other
consequential prayers. The trial Court framed the issues.
The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and when the
NC: 2026:KHC:14951
HC-KAR
matter was posted for defendant's evidence, the
petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 filed an application
under Order XXVI Rule 10A r/w Section 151 of CPC
seeking to refer Ex.P10-GPA dated 21.07.1999 to a
handwriting expert for scientific investigation. The perusal
of the application and the affidavit indicates that defendant
No.1 - Smt.Rukmini intends to seek verification of her
signature found at Ex.P10. However, it is to be observed
that such an application ought to indicate both the
admitted signature as well as the disputed signature in
order to enable comparison. In the instant case, the
application only indicates that the GPA to be referred for
scientific investigation of the signature expert, but does
not mention, which admitted signature it is to be
compared with. Furthermore, it is also to be noticed that
Ex.P10 was marked through PW1, but the said witness
was not cross-examined by the petitioner.
6. The trial Court considering the fact that it is the
plaintiff, who has to establish his case by his oral and
NC: 2026:KHC:14951
HC-KAR
documentary evidence, proceeded to reject the
application. I do not find any error or perversity in the
finding of the trial Court. In my considered view, the
application filed for verification of the signature in the
disputed GPA cannot be entertained in the absence of
seeking to refer two documents, one with the disputed
signature and one with the admitted signature for
scientific investigation by an expert. None of such
averments are found in the application. Hence, the
application is rightly rejected by the trial Court, which does
not call for any interference. Insofar as the contention that
the petitioner has got the signature verified from private
agency has no bearing on the consideration of the petition.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is
rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
