Dismissed

Hanumanthaiah v. Sundar Raj

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/12096/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order allowing a respondent to appoint a handwriting expert. The Court held that since the trial court framed an issue placing the burden of proof on the respondent to prove the documents were forged, the trial court was justified in permitting the expert appointment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to appoint a Court commissioner as proposed by the parties.

Hanumanthaiah Vs Sundar Raj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12096 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS S/O. KARIYAPPA, R/O. BYRAPURA VILLAGE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. VARSHA R IYENGAR)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SUNDAR RAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. NAGARAJASETTY, R/O. BYRAPURA VILLAGE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 214.

¶11

….RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. M.V. SRIDHAR CHAKRAVARTHI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 01.07.2017 IN O.S.NO.11/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY; AND ETC.

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner aggrieved by the order on I.A.III

¶18

dated 1.7.2017 passed in O.S.No.11/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahally has filed this writ petition.

¶19

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:

¶20

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.11/2015 for recovery of money. In the said suit, the respondent filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court framed the issues and the parties have adduced evidence. When the matter was posted for argument, the respondent filed an application in I.A.III seeking permission to appoint hand writing expert for comparing the admitted signature of the respondent. In support of the

¶21

¶22

application, the respondent has filed an affidavit contending that the petitioner denied about the execution of the Pronote or Consideration Receipt in favour of the petitioner and the respondent executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the signatures found in the mortgage deed, the petitioner and attesters have created an On Demand Pronote forging the signature of the respondent. Hence, the respondent filed the application.

¶23

2.1. The petitioner objected the same by filing objection contending that the application filed by the respondent is premature. When the case was posted for cross examination, the respondent has filed an application to drag on the matter. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.

¶24

2.2. The trial Court after hearing the parties

¶25

allowed the application vide order dated 1.7.2017. The

¶26

¶27

petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 1.7.2017 filed this writ petition.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶29

learned counsel for respondent .

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶31

that the burden of proving exhibits P1 and P2 is on the petitioner but not on the respondent. She further submits that the Trial Court has already recorded a finding regarding comparison of signatures as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act. She further submits that the respondent has denied his signature on vakalath and also the written statement during the course of cross examination. Hence, she submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application i.e. I.A.III. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶32

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶34

submits that the Trial Court has framed issue No.3 placing the burden of proof on the respondent. The respondent has denied the execution of exhibits P1 and P2 and also denied the signature in Ex.P1 and P2. He further submits that when the burden is on the respondent, the respondent has to prove that the signature appearing in exhibits P1 and P2 does not bear the signature of the respondent. He submits that the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶35

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the defendant has executed exhibits P1 and P2 in favour of the petitioner. Further the respondent has denied his signature on exhibits P1 and P2 and the Trial Court

¶37

¶38

has framed issue No.3 i.e., whether the defendant proves that On Demand Pronote relied upon by the plaintiff as concocted, forged and created documents?

¶39

From the perusal of issue No.3 framed by the Trial Court, the burden of proof lies on the respondent to prove that the signature appearing in exhibits P1 and P2 does not bare his signature.

¶40

The Trial Court after considering the material on record was justified in passing the impugned order. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to appoint a Court

¶42

commissioner as proposed by the parties.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

Hanumanthaiah v. Sundar Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthaiah v. Sundar Raj

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

The Karnataka State Road Transport Vs Smt. Yellamma

Sri Austin Roach Vs Smt. L. Rani

Smt Jayalakshmi Devi Vs Sri H Nagesh

Dr. Navin C Vs Sri H Lankappa

Smt. Nethravathi Vs Sri. Nanjappa @ Dorai

Sri Manilal B Patel Vs Smt Leela Bhen