A writ petition under Articles 226/227 challenging the trial court's order appointing a Scientific Expert to verify a disputed signature. The High Court held the trial court was justified in allowing the application due to signature denial and rejected the writ petition.
Writ petition rejected; trial court's order staying in force.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.102615/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ BALLOLI & SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVS)
AND
SHRI ARAVIND S/O SHIVAJIRAO JORAPUR AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.147, LINGPUR GALLI, KHANAPUR, DIST:BELAGAVI-591302.
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.12.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.111/2012 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners who are the defendants in OS No.111/2012 on the file of the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 3.12.2018 on IA No.18 filed under Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC for appointment of Scientific Commissioner to investigate the genuineness of the signature of the 2nd defendant is allowed.
petitioners.
3
the genuineness of the signature of the 2nd defendant
found in Ex.P7. The defendants opposed the said application by filing objections stating that it is for the plaintiff to produce the evidence and prove the agreement and it is not necessary to appoint the Scientific Expert to find out the genuineness of the signature of the defendant No.2. It is also stated that the present application is filed belatedly after crossexamination of PW1. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
the agreement of sale dated 17.11.2007 at Ex.P7. Defendant No.2 denied his signature found on Ex.P7 in
4
his written statement as well as in his crossexamination which necessitated the plaintiff to file the present application to compare the signatures of the 2nd defendant found on Ex.P7 with the admitted signatures on the vakalath and written statement.
Sd/JUDGE
JTR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the trial court's order allowing appointment of a Scientific Commissioner
Whether the appointment is warranted given the defendant's denial of signature on the agreement of sale
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Datta S/o Ramchandra Nagvekar
Shri Deepak S/o Vishwanath Haldankar
Shri Aravind S/o Shivajirao Jorapur
S.G. Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
