Dismissed¶45

Smt K Rukmini v. Sri N Nagaraju

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026WP/11139/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Handwriting expert reference; Order XXVI Rule 10A r/w Section 151 CPC; admitted signature versus disputed signature comparison; GPA dated 21.07.1999; Ex.P10; General Power of Attorney; Article 227 writ; GM-CPC; Principal City Civil Judge Bengaluru; O.S.No.7212/2014; IA.No.II; rejection of expert-reference application upheld; private forensic agency (AHFS) opinion irrelevant; Ex.P10 marked through PW1 not cross-examined; Karnataka High Court, Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.; order dated 14.01.2019; writ petition rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was rejected and the trial Court's order dated 14.01.2019 rejecting IA.No.II was left undisturbed. ¶45

Smt K Rukmini Vs Sri N Nagaraju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was rejected and the trial Court's order dated 14.01.2019 rejecting IA.No.II was left undisturbed.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial Court's order dated 14.01.2019 rejecting IA.No.II (application under Order XXVI Rule 10A r/w Section 151 CPC for reference of the signature on GPA dated 21.07.1999 to a handwriting expert) calls for interference. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

There is no error or perversity in the trial Court's finding rejecting the application, and the order does not call for interference.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

An application for verification of the signature in a disputed GPA cannot be entertained in the absence of seeking to refer two documents - one with the disputed signature and one with the admitted signature - for scientific investigation by an expert.

¶45

Key takeaways

Such an application ought to indicate both the admitted signature and the disputed signature to enable comparison; in the instant case the application did not mention which admitted signature the disputed signature was to be compared with, and Ex.P10 was marked through PW1 who was not cross-examined by the petitioner.ratio¶40
The petitioner getting the signature verified from a private agency has no bearing on the consideration of the petition.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - rejection of application under Order XXVI Rule 10A r/w Section 151 CPC for reference of a disputed signature to a handwriting expert - upheld. Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7212/2014 sought reference of her signature on GPA dated 21.07.1999 (Ex.P10) to a handwriting expert; the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru rejected IA.No.II by order dated 14.01.2019. Held by the High Court (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.): an application for verification of a signature in a disputed GPA cannot be entertained unless it seeks reference of two documents, one bearing the disputed signature and one bearing the admitted signature, for scientific investigation by an expert; the application here did not mention which admitted signature was to be used for comparison, and Ex.P10 was marked through PW1 who was not cross-examined by the petitioner. The opinion obtained from a private agency (Association of Handwriting and Forensic Science India) had no bearing on the consideration of the petition. Finding no error or perversity in the trial Court's order, the writ petition was held devoid of merit and rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14951 W.P. No.11139/2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.11139/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. K. RUKMINI W/O SRI. R.V. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS M/S. SRI. BHUVANESH ENGINEERING WORKS R/AT NO.C-17, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.

¶9

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM

¶10

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.,)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. N. NAGARAJU S/O LATE S.M. RAMAKRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.46, 1ST FLOOR 3RD MAIN ROAD SRIKANTESHWARA NAGARA MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560096.

¶15

SMT. MANJULA W/O SRI. D.P. PATHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT OLD NO.1094/66 NEW NO.1079, 9TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, PRAKASHNAGAR BENGALURU-560021.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:14951 W.P. No.11139/2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT OLD NO.1094/66 NEW NO.1079, 9TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, PRAKASHNAGAR BENGALURU-560021.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. LOKESH S.G. ADV., FOR R1 SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H.P. ADV., FOR R2 NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S V/O/DTD:01.09.2025)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 14.01.2019 ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.7212/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-D AND ALLOW IA NO.II AS PRAYED FOR & ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.01.2019 passed on IA.No.II in OS.No.7212/2014 by the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (for short 'the trial Court').

¶27

Sri.C.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-defendant

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14951 W.P. No.11139/2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

No.1 had filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to refer the signature found in General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA') dated 21.07.1999, which is claimed to have been executed by her in favour of defendant No.2, to a handwriting expert. However, the said application came to be rejected by the trial Court without properly appreciating the scope of law. It is submitted that the petitioner-defendant No.1 secured an opinion on the disputed GPA dated 21.07.1999 from the Association of Handwriting and Forensic Science India (AHFS), which has clearly opined on the disputed signature. However, none of these aspects were considered by the trial Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, Sri.Lokesh S.G., learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the application filed by the petitioner is bereft of any details. It is submitted that the

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14951 W.P. No.11139/2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

petitioner has not stated with regard to which signature is the admitted signature in the document that can be used to be compared with the disputed signature. It is further submitted that the disputed signature i.e. Ex.P10 was marked through PW1 but the petitioner herein has not cross-examined the said witness. It is also submitted that the application for expert reference is filed at the stage of the defendant's evidence and filing of such an application at such a belated stage amounts to abuse of process of law intended to prolong the proceedings. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶36

I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶37

The material on record indicates that the respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.7212/2014 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for declaration of the ownership of the suit schedule property and other consequential prayers. The trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and when the

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14951 W.P. No.11139/2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

matter was posted for defendant's evidence, the petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to refer Ex.P10-GPA dated 21.07.1999 to a handwriting expert for scientific investigation. The perusal of the application and the affidavit indicates that defendant No.1 - Smt.Rukmini intends to seek verification of her signature found at Ex.P10. However, it is to be observed that such an application ought to indicate both the admitted signature as well as the disputed signature in order to enable comparison. In the instant case, the application only indicates that the GPA to be referred for scientific investigation of the signature expert, but does not mention, which admitted signature it is to be compared with. Furthermore, it is also to be noticed that Ex.P10 was marked through PW1, but the said witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner.

¶41

The trial Court considering the fact that it is the

¶42

plaintiff, who has to establish his case by his oral and

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14951 W.P. No.11139/2019

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

documentary evidence, proceeded to reject the application. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding of the trial Court. In my considered view, the application filed for verification of the signature in the disputed GPA cannot be entertained in the absence of seeking to refer two documents, one with the disputed signature and one with the admitted signature for scientific investigation by an expert. None of such averments are found in the application. Hence, the application is rightly rejected by the trial Court, which does not call for any interference. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner has got the signature verified from private agency has no bearing on the consideration of the petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is

¶46

rejected .

¶47

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶48

ABK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt K Rukmini v. Sri N Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K Rukmini v. Sri N Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Renuka Vs George D Souza

Sri Ramesh Vs the Managing Director

M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Vs Mallika

Kum H v Madhushree Vs Obalagiriyappa

Yes Bank Limited Vs the Archidicese of Bangalore

Subbanna Vs Muniyappa