Dismissed

Shri.Mallappa Sangappa Gurlkatti v. Smt.Sushila W/O Vijay Kumbar

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2020WP/145597/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer a disputed hand loan agreement (Kaigada Patra) for forensic scientific examination of signatures.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The impugned order of the Principal Civil Judge, Saundatti, rejecting I.A.No.IX was allowed to remain. No forensic expert opinion was obtained.

Shri.Mallappa Sangappa Gurlkatti Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^{T H} DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

W.P.NO.145597/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SHRI MALLAPPA SANGAPPA GURLKATTI, AGE : 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KALLAPUR-591126, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT.SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SMT.SUSHILA W/O VIJAY KUMBAR, AGE : 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O KALLAPUR (SHIRASANGI)-591126, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

..RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SHRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV.)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-A ORDER DATED 26.02.2020 IN O.S.NO.9/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI AT SAUNDATTI DISMISSING I.A.NO.IX FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C PRAYING TO REFER THE SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT ON HAND LOAN AGREEMENT (KAIGADA PATRA) DATED 15.07.2008 AND SIGNATURES OF RESPONDENT TAKEN BEFORE COURT, TO FORENSIC EXPERT OPINION AND THEREBY MODIFY ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.IX

¶15

¶16

FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING “B” GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

: ORDER :

¶19

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2020 passed on I.A.No.IX in O.S.No.9/2010 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti, this writ petition is filed.

¶20

Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.9/2010 for the recovery of Rs.2,50,000/and the respondent executed Kaigada Patra in favour of the petitioner. The respondent failed to repay the hand loan amount. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money. The respondent appeared and filed written statement denying about the averments made in the plaint and also about the alleged transaction of hand loan.

¶21

¶22

Petitioner was examined as PW.1 and

¶23

also led the evidence of attesting witness to the Kaigada Patra. The said Kaigada Patra is marked

¶24

as Ex.P.1. The petitioner has closed the evidence of his side. The respondent has examined as DW1. In the course of cross

¶25

examination Ex.P.1 is confronted to DW.1. DW.1 has denied her signature on Ex.P.1. The respondent examined DW.2, who was also crossexamined. When the matter was set for arguments, the petitioner has filed an application to refer Ex.P.1 for scientific examination only on the ground that DW.1 has

¶26

denied her signature on Ex.P.1. Hence, on the said ground, the petitioner has filed an application to refer Ex.P.1 to Forensic Expert for ascertaining whether signature on Ex.P.1 belongs to respondent by comparing her signature obtained before the Court.

¶27

¶28

The respondent filed objection to the said application and contended that the

¶29

petitioner has created a bogus styled document as Kaigada Patra and denied the execution of Kaigada Patra and also her signature on Ex.P.1.

¶30

The Trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected I.A.No.IX filed by the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed this writ petition.

¶31

Heard arguments of the learned

¶32

counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, during the course of cross-examination of DW.1, the DW.1 has denied her signature on Ex.P.1. The petitioner has no other go, except to seek an opinion from the Expert to ascertain whether the signature on Ex.P.1 is that of DW.1. Hence, he prayed to allow this writ petition.

¶34

¶35

8. Learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

respondent supports the impugned order.

¶37

Perused the records and also

¶38

submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶39

The petitioner has filed a suit for

¶40

recovery of money. The petitioner has produced Kaigada Patra which is marked as Ex.P.1 alleged to have been executed by DW.1. The petitioner in support of his contention examined attesting witness to Ex.P.1 in order to prove the contents of Ex.P.1. That merely, the respondent has denied the signature on Ex.P.1 is not a ground to send Ex.P.1 to the Forensic Experts. The petitioner has already examined the attesting witness to Ex.P.1 in order to prove the contents of Ex.P.1. Now if a commissioner is appointed and report is called for it amounts to collecting of evidence. Thus, the Trial Court after considering the entire material on record has

¶41

¶42

rightly rejected the application. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere in the impugned order accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

EM/-

Shri.Mallappa Sangappa Gurlkatti v. Smt.Sushila W/O Vijay Kumbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Mallappa Sangappa Gurlkatti v. Smt.Sushila W/O Vijay Kumbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Tippeswamy S/O Late a Tippeswamy Vs P Doddamarappa S/O Late Sanna Obaiah

Ku.Kushboo D/O Tabrej Halageri, Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Annigeri Green Tech, Vs Vishwanath Gouda S. Hiregoudar

Smt.Subhadra Kiran Gavade Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ashok Ningappa Patil Vs Secretary (Revenue)

Sri. Sanjeev S/O Narayan Kulkarni Vs Sri. Fakirappa S/O Dundappa Kattimani