S R Nataraj Vs Sri v Seetharamaiah Shetty

THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 12.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO. XXXVIII IN O.S.NO. 48/2013 BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, VIDE PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.XXXVII FILED BY THE PETITIONER THEREIN VIDE PRODUCED AT ANNX-H.

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:10581 WP No. 1876 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.48/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira is directed against the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.37, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 94(e) of CPC for a direction to refer three documents to a handwriting expert for the purpose of obtaining a report was rejected by the trial Court.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶37

counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶38

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule removable property. The said suit is being contested by the respondents/defendants. After completion of evidence and at the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed the instant application-I.A.No.37 under

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:10581 WP No. 1876 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Order XXVI Rule 10(A) seeking comparison with the disputed signatures of plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 with their admitted signatures. The said application having been opposed by the respondents/defendants, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the same was filed at a highly belated stage and the same cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae in evidence. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶43

Before averting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court, which reads as under:

¶44

"APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10(A) READ WITH SECTION 94(e) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

¶45

That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying Affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to send/refer the following documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory, i.e., The Director, Handwriting Expert, State Forensic Science Laboratory, SarjapuraMarathahalli Road, Madiwala, Venkatapura, HSR Layout Sector-5, Bengaluru-560 068, to verify the authenticity of the signatures of the Def No.1 and the Plaintiff and to report the same for proper adjudication of the matter between the parties, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:10581 WP No. 1876 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO BE REFERRED FOR HAND WRITING EXPORT

¶50

1. Ex.P5 (Agreement of Sale).

¶51

2. Ex.D1 (Sammathi Patra).

¶52

Disputed Signatures	Admitted Signatures
*1. V.Seetharamiah Shetty*	(a) Written Statement or
(a) Ex-P5(a) to Ex.P5(c) (3	the Vakalath of the
Signatures), at all Pages	Defendant No.1.
*2. V.Seetharamiah Shetty*	(a) Written Statement or
(a) Ex-P6(a) (1 Signature), at the 2^ndpage at Ex-P5.	the Vakalath of the Defendant No.1.
*3. S.R.Nataraj,*	Vakalath of Plaintiff or Ex-
(a) Ex-D1(a1) (1 Signature), _at page-1 _	D1(a)

¶53

To compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures and verity the authenticity of the signatures and report the same, as per the details given herein below."

¶54

As clearly stated in the application by the petitioner/plaintiff, Exs.P5 and P6 contains the disputed signature of defendant No.1 while his admitted signatures are contained in the written statement and vakalathnama. So also according to the petitioner/plaintiff, his alleged signature on page No.1 of Ex.D1(a1) is disputed by him, the respondents/defendants would contend that the same has been admitted by PW.1 in his cross examination. Since the petitioner /plaintiff has disputed his signature marked as Ex.D1(a1) at page No.1, and the admitted signature of plaintiff is contained

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10581 WP No. 1876 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

in his vakalathnama at Ex.D1(a1), the petitioner/plaintiff intends to send even this document to the Handwriting Expert for comparison.

¶58

Per contra, it is contented on behalf of the respondent No.1 that before in his cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted his signature at Ex.D1(a1) and it is impermissible to send even that signature for comparison.

¶59

Be that as it may, the consideration of the rival contentions as regards the evidence of PW.1 and crossexamination would lie in the realm of appreciation of evidence, which would arise at the stage of disposal of the suit and not while considering an application for appointment of a Handwriting Expert.

¶60

Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that while plaintiff's contend that Ex.D1(a1) is not his signature and the defendants contend that it is the signature of the plaintiff, it would be necessary to refer the said signature also to a Handwriting Expert for the purpose of obtaining comparison and to obtain a report in this regard.

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:10581 WP No. 1876 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that mere denial was not sufficient to refer the documents to a Forensic Science Laboratory and the petitioner was protracting the proceedings and attempting to fill up the lacunae in the evidence.

¶65

In my considered opinion, mere referring the disputed signature of the petitioner and defendant No.1 for comparison with their admitted signature would not amount to taking away the rights of the respondents to place reliance upon the oral and documentary evidence on record, nor would it nullify the effect of any alleged admission in the crossexamination of PW.1 and the report to be submitted by the Handwriting Expert would be an additional piece of evidence which would enable the Court to arrive at a just decision.

¶66

It is also relevant to state that since both parties would have an opportunity to file their objections to the report of the Court Commissioner and also examine/cross-examine him and the entire expenses would necessarily have to be

¶67

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10581 WP No. 1876 of 2026

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

borne by the petitioner alone, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the application-I.A.No.37 is allowed by setting aside the impugned order by leaving open all contentions.

¶70

Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting

¶71

I.A.No.37 has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶72

In the result, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶75

ii) Impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.37 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sira is hereby set aside.

¶76

iii) I.A.No.37 filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 94(e) of CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed.

¶77

iv) The trial Court is directed to send the documents referred to in I.A.No.37 ( supra ) to the following Court Commissioners/Handwriting Expert/Forensic Science Laboratory:

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:10581 WP No. 1876 of 2026

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

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

¶82

v) The trial Court is directed to secure/obtain a report from the aforesaid Forensic Science Laboratory/Court Commissioner/Handwriting Expert and proceed further and dispose of the suit within a period of 6 months from 18.03.2026.

¶83

vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to file their objections, if any, to the Commissioner's report and also examine/crossexamine him, if they so desire.

¶84

vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶85

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 y

¶87

VM

S R Nataraj v. Sri v Seetharamaiah Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S R Nataraj v. Sri v Seetharamaiah Shetty

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. Venkata Shiva Asha Akula Vs Sri Indar Kumar

Sri. Ravikumar Vs Sri. Arasegowda

Sri. M.C. Balaram Vs Sri. S. Ananda

M/S Kassturi Enterprises Vs Tumkur Merchants Credit

Sri v Prathap Reddy Vs Sri Papanna

M/S Aishwarya Homes Vs Sri Thimmegowda