Allowed

Sri. Munivenkatappa v. Sri. Y. Peter Raju

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2021WP/31151/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court judge quashed two orders permitting marking of a signature on a photostat and forensic examination thereof. The court held separate marking serves no purpose and forensic analysis is impossible without original manuscript characteristics.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders permitting marking of signature on photostat and sending it for forensic examination were set at naught.

Sri. Munivenkatappa Vs Sri. Y. Peter Raju — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.31151 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.53602 OF 2017(GM-CPC)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.31151/2015:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT NO.DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M V, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. Y. PETER RAJU, S/O J.JAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.692, DEVID NILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, ST.JAMES CHURCH H.A.FARM POST, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 024. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT.S N SUDHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2015 PASSED BY THE 44^TH LEARNED ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE IN PERMITTING THE PLAINTIFF TO MARK THE ALLEGED SIGNATURE OF THE DEFENDANT FOUND ON EX.P.53 DOCUMENT ON IDENTIFICATION THROUGH PW-2 VIDE ANNX-A IN O.S.NO.6561/2009.

¶11

¶12

IN W.P.NO.53602/2017:

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, K R PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED.

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. M V CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI Y PETER RAJU, S/O J YAGAPPA, R/AT NO.692,DEVIDNILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, ST.JAMES CHURCH, H.A.FARM POST, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SMT. S N SUDHA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE PERMITTING THE PLAINTIFF TO ADDRESS ARGUMENT ON I.A.12 AT ANNEX-A IN O.S.6561/2009.

¶22

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioner being the defendant in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.6561/2009 has filed these two writ petitions. His grievance in the first case ie., W.P.No.31151/2015 is as to learned Judge of the Court below during the recording of evidence permitting the marking of signature appearing on

¶25

¶26

the Xerox copy of General Power of Attorney dated 10.04.1987; his grievance in the other case ie., in W.P.No.53602/2017 is against the subject Xerox copy of agreement to sell dated 10.11.1986 being referred for forensic examination at the hands of a Handwriting Expert.

¶27

After service of notice, the respondent-plaintiff having entered appearance through his counsel resists the writ petitions making submission in justification of the impugned order.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶29

(a) Ordinarily, for production of secondary evidence, the party to the proceeding has to lay a foundation in terms of Sec.65(c) of the Evidence Act vide YASHODA –vsSHOBHA RANI, (2007) 5 SCC 730; where a Photostat copy of a original document is permitted to be produced & marked as a secondary evidence pursuant to a Coordinate Bench order dated 30.04.2015 in the earlier round of litigation between the parties ie., in W.P.No.12256/2013 that too sans any specific

¶30

¶31

foundation, it is difficult to subscribe to the view of the learned trial Judge that the signature appearing on the Photostat copy of said document be separately marked for the purpose of establishing its authenticity. There is no need of marking the signature separately since such marking will not serve any purpose.

¶32

(b) If the whole document is marked as a secondary evidence and what weight needs to be attached to such document, is a matter left to the discretion of the Court below, is true. However, the impugned order permitting the separate marking of signature appearing on the photostat copy of General Power of Attorney does not appear to be sound; this does not mean the document in question should be eschewed from consideration.

¶33

(c) At times it becomes inevitable for the Courts to ascertain authenticity of the signature or script in a document and this is normally undertaken with the aid of Handwriting Experts; however, subject to all just exceptions, the said exercise can be undertaken where the original document is available since in a photostat copy all the relevant characteristics of manuscript would not be there for examination by the expert; standard text books on ‘Handwriting Examination’ state that, to ascertain the

¶34

¶35

authenticity of a manuscript these characters are to be looked into and that it is not possible to examine the same where the original document is not available; that being the position, there is force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the subject photostat copy of the agreement to sell of the year 1986 could not have been forwarded for forensic examination by a Handwriting Expert, in the absence of cogent collateral material.

¶36

In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; with the aforesaid observation the impugned orders are set at naught.

¶37

The learned Judge of the Court below is requested to dispose off more than a decade old suit before the onset of Summer Vacation 2021, all contentions of the parties otherwise having been kept open.

¶38

No costs.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Snb/

Sri. Munivenkatappa v. Sri. Y. Peter Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Munivenkatappa v. Sri. Y. Peter Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Papanna Vs Sri Mahalingappa

Sri. M. Anwar @ Anwar Ji Vs Sree Hulliamma Praja Seva Samithi (R)

Smt Chikka Iragamma Vs Sri v M Muniyappa

Sri Nanjappa Vs Sri Thooru Madappa

Sri Rajappa Vs Sri. Thimmarayappa

Sri. N. Ganesh Vs Smt. Girijamma