Defendant in a specific performance suit challenged the rejection of his application under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC seeking comparison of signatures on the agreement of sale. The High Court held that DW1 had admitted signing the document, so referral was unnecessary, and dismissed the writ petition.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28022 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. E. GOVINDARAJAN S/O. ERUCHAN, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD STREET, NARAYANA PILLAI STREET CROSS, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-01. (BY SRI. SRIHARI R DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 26117/2012 ON THE FILE OF LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, AT BANGALORE CCH-29 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL AT BANGALORE (CCH-74) VIDE ANNX-E O.S.NO.26117/2012 ON IA 20.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DTD. 11.09.2024 IN O.S.NO. 26117/2012 PASSED BY THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL AT BENGALURU ON I.A.NO. 20 VIDE ANNEXURE-E O.S.NO.26117/2012 ON I.A. 20.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant No.1 in O.S No.26117/2012 on the file of LXXIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall at Bengaluru has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 11.09.2024, by which an application filed by them under Order 26 Rule 10A of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') was rejected.
02.12.2006 and in order to overcome the issue of limitation, the plaintiff had concocted the agreement of sale dated 07.09.2009. Based on these contentions, the suit was set down for trial and after the evidence of the parties was adduced, an application was filed by defendant No.1 under order 26 Rule 10A of CPC to refer the agreement of sale dated 07.09.2009 for comparison of the signatures thereon with that of signatures of defendant No.1 on the written statement and the vakalath. The Trial Court noticed the evidence of DW1 where he deposed as follows:
“It is not true to say that, the signatures to Ex.P2 are put in my shop. It was done in the shop of typist. It was in the Dharmaraja Koil street. Now it is not there. I do not know the typist. It is not to true that, Ex.P2 was prepared at my instance. It was got done by plaintiff only.”.
The Trial Court therefore held that DW1 admitted his signatures on Ex.P2. Therefore, there was no need to refer the document for scientific investigation and comparison of the signatures of defendant No.1 with his signature on the vakalath and the written statement. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant No.1 is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:46208 WP No. 28022 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:46208 WP No. 28022 of 2024
Any observations made by this Court shall not influence
the Trial Court in deciding the suit on merit.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting defendant No.1's application under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC to refer the agreement of sale for signature comparison, given his alleged admission of signatures o
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. E. GOVINDARAJAN S/O. ERUCHAN
MRS. ROSEY W/O. MUTHUSWAMY
SMT. K. PARIMALA W/O. L. KUSHI
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
