Sri Harish S H Vs Sri R Ashok Kumar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7499 WP No. 10886 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10886 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. HARISH S. H., SON OF HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2798, D BLOCK, 12^TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. R. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT VARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, GULURU HOBLI, TUMUKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN CODE – 572 122.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. VINITHA P.C., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU IN O.S.NO.506/2018 UPON I.A UNDER SECTION 45 OF EVIDENCE ACT; b) ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-D IN O.S.NO.506/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY c) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OF WHATSOEVER NATURE, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO BE GRANTED

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:7499 WP No. 10886 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.506/2018 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, is directed against the impugned order dated 11.02.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to refer the disputed signatures on Ex.P-1 on the cheque to a handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner -defendant was rejected by the trial Court.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶26

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/together with interest and for other reliefs. According to the

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:7499 WP No. 10886 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.932329 pertaining to his account drawn on Canara Bank, Gowribidanur Branch dated 25.07.2016. The petitioner- defendant filed his written statement contesting the suit interalia disputing and denying his alleged signatures on the aforesaid cheque, which was marked as Ex.P-1 during the evidence of PW-1. After partly cross examining PW-1, the petitioner filed the instant application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking reference of the disputed signatures of the petitioner with his admitted signatures on his vakalathnama, written statement, affidavit etc. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application for the reasons that no grounds had been made out by the petitioner seeking reference under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶31

A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record will indicate that the trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that while the petitioner specifically denied

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:7499 WP No. 10886 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

his signature on the alleged cheque produced at Ex.P-1, his vakalathnama, written statement, affidavit etc., contains his admitted signatures. Under these circumstances, in order to elucidate the issues in controversy between the parties, it would be just and appropriate to refer the disputed signature of the petitioner on Ex.P-1, cheque for comparison with his admitted signature on his vakalathnama, written statement, affidavit etc., to a handwriting expert for the purpose of securing a report and to proceed further within a stipulated time frame by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the application filed by the petitioner.

¶36

5. In the result, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶39

ii) The impugned order dated 11.02.2025 in

¶40

O.S.No.506/2018 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, is hereby set aside.

¶41

iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is hereby allowed.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7499 WP No. 10886 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

iv) The trial Court is directed to refer the disputed signature of the petitioner on the cheque Ex.P-1 for comparison with his admitted signature found in the written statement, vakalathnama, affidavit etc., and to secure a report in this regard.

¶45

v) The trial Court shall refer the matter to the following handwriting expert:

¶46

M/s.Truth Labs, 2^nd Floor, Primus One, 28/2, Main Road, Siddapura, Whitefield, Bengaluru -560 066

¶47

vi) It is further directed that the entire expenses for reference and to secure a report will be borne solely by the petitioner and the respondent will not be liable to pay any expenses in this regard.

¶48

vii) The trial Court is directed to make reference as stated supra without any delay on the next date of hearing of the suit and obtain a report and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 months from 05.03.2026.

¶49

viii) The trial Court is directed to ensure that the report is secured immediately without any delay.

¶50