Dismissed

Sri Naveen H Kalra v. Mr. Sanjay Bajli

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/24963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order allowing an application for forensic comparison of disputed signatures on sale agreements with signatures on admitted cheques. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the trial court was right to refer documents for scientific examination to rule out foul play.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Sri Naveen H Kalra Vs Mr. Sanjay Bajli — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41908 WP No. 24963 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24963 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NAVEEN .H KALRA, S/O HARISH .S KALRA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RA/T NO. SE, 2^ND FLOOR S.L.V PEARL APARTMENT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-98.

¶8

MR. DINESH .M VORA, S/O LATE MULCHAND .D VORA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶9

MR. ROHITH .M VORAL, S/O LATE MULCHAND .D VORA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 204, JALA KRUPA APARTMENT, YAMUNA BAI RAOD, MADAVANAGAR, BANGALORE-01.

¶12

(BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY C.M, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR. SANJAY BAJLI, S/O LATE N.P. BAJLI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 51/4, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶16

SRI. VAMAN SALIAN, S/O LATE T.B. PUDHRAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41908 WP No. 24963 of 2024

¶18

RA/AT NO. 15, 17^TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE-38.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON ORDER DTD 03.08.2024 IN O.S NO. 2977/14 ON HONBLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND PASSED VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOWING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10 OF CPC AND READ WITH SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. REFER THE ALLEGED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND G.P.A (EX-P-1 AND P-2) TO THE HAND WRITING EXPERT FOR HIS EXPERT OPINION TO COMPARE THE SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT WITH THE ADMITTED SIGNATURE OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.2977/2014 pending on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 03.08.2024 by which, an application (I.A.No.10) filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC read with Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was allowed.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:41908 WP No. 24963 of 2024

¶27

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants.

¶28

The suit in O.S.No.2977/2014 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 08.06.2010. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant No.1 being the owner of the suit property had agreed to sell it to the plaintiffs for Rs.1,51,00,000/- and received Rs.1,20,00,000/- and balance was payable at the time of execution of a deed of sale. The transaction had to be concluded within two months. The plaintiffs claimed that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the defendant No.1 was prolonging to perform his part. After much persuasion, he in order to win the confidence of the plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney on 13.11.2012 and nominated the plaintiffs to do all such acts, deeds and things needed for conclusion of the transaction. The plaintiffs claimed that they offered to pay the balance of Rs.31,00,000/-. They claimed that later they approached defendant No.1 and requested him to perform his part of contract. However, the defendant No.1 allegedly managed to divert the attention of the plaintiffs. Later, the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41908 WP No. 24963 of 2024

¶30

plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.1 had sold the suit property to defendant No.2 for Rs.48,00,000/- though the value as on that day was Rs.3,00,00,000/-. The plaintiffs therefore caused a notice and called upon defendant No.1 to perform his part of the contract and execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs claimed that defendant No.2 replied and admitted the transaction but termed it was a money transaction and instructed the plaintiffs to recover the advance paid from the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs therefore, filed the suit to enforce the agreement.

¶31

The defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement and the receipt of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as contended by the plaintiffs. He also denied the execution of the power of attorney. He claimed that the signatures found on the agreement and the power of attorney were forged. He contended that these signatures may be forensically examined and compared with his signatures on the vakalath and written statement. He admitted that notice was issued by the plaintiffs and the same was replied by him.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41908 WP No. 24963 of 2024

¶33

During the course of the trial, the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC read with Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to compare the signatures found on agreement of sale, power of attorney with the signatures of defendant No.1 found on the cheques, which were marked as Exs.P4 to P16.

¶34

This application was opposed by the plaintiffs who contended inter alia that the defendant No.1 had denied the signatures on the cheques marked as Exs.P4 to P16 and therefore, Exs.P1 to P2 could not be compared with the said documents.

¶35

The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order allowed the application and directed the defendant No.1 to choose any of the documents marked as Exs.P4 to P16 for comparison with Exs.P1 to P2.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs are

¶37

before this Court.

¶38

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the defendant No.1 denied the signatures found on Exs.P4 to P16 and therefore, the said documents could not be used to

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:41908 WP No. 24963 of 2024

¶41

compare with signatures on Exs.P1 and P2. He contends that the defendant No.1 should have produced some document of the year 2010 so that the same could be considered.

¶42

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

¶43

The plaintiffs claimed that the signatures found on Exs.P4 to P16 were the signatures of the defendant No.1 and were therefore marked. They also claimed that the signatures on Exs.P1 and P2 were signatures of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 denied the signatures found on Exs.P1 and P2 and contended that the signatures found thereon were forged. In the light of the aforesaid contention, though the Court could have compared both the signatures to verify whether the signatures found on Exs.P1 and P2 corresponded with Exs.P4 to P16, it was prudent for the Court to have referred the documents to scientific examination to rule out any foul play. There is no error committed by the Trial Court in directing the comparison of signatures found on Exs.P1 and P2 with the signatures on Exs.P4 to P16, warranting interference.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:41908 WP No. 24963 of 2024

¶46

Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is

dismissed .

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Sri Naveen H Kalra v. Mr. Sanjay Bajli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Naveen H Kalra v. Mr. Sanjay Bajli

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

Smt Krishnavathi Vs Mrs. Premavathy

Sri. T. Narayana Reddy Vs Sri. Lakshmaiah Reddy

Sri C Manju Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri Venkataswamy Reddy Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri. Jagannath v. Pai Vs Sri. Munishamappa

R. Krishnamurthy, Vs Veeramma