Dismissed¶73

Sri Joseph v. Smt. Susan Abraham

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026WP/39293/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227; writ petition dismissed; GM-CPC; thumb impression; re-reference to FSL; forensic laboratory; Order XXVI Rule 10(A) CPC; Sections 45 and 73 Evidence Act; Court Commissioner report; constructive res judicata; Ex.P1 sale deed; LTM; specimen thumb impression; O.S.No.8214/2013; XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bengaluru (CCH-28); Karnataka High Court 2026; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423; K.P. Natarajan v. Muthalammal AIR 2021 SC 3443; Mohammed Ali v. Jaya (2022) 10 SCC 477.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned order; liberty reserved to petitioner and respondents to raise contentions on the Court Commissioner's report and evidence at final disposal of the suit; Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of the suit. ¶73

Sri Joseph Vs Smt. Susan Abraham — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the Trial Court dismissing I.A.No.17 (seeking re-reference of the disputed thumb impressions to the FSL) suffers from illegality, infirmity, perversity or failure of justice warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶66

Court's answer

The impugned order of the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, nor is it capricious or perverse, nor has it occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶66-67

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner as well as the respondents to put forth all their contentions regarding the report of the Court Commissioner and the evidence submitted by him at the time of final disposal of the suit before the Trial Court.

¶69

Key takeaways

Since the suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, and both parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit.ratio¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.), Oral Order dated 12.01.2026 — W.P. No. 39293 of 2025 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner (defendant No.3 in O.S.No.8214/2013, XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru CCH-28) sought quashing of the Trial Court's order dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure-J) dismissing his I.A.No.17 filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) CPC and Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act for re-reference of his disputed thumb impressions found on Ex.P1 (sale deed) to another forensic expert, alleging collusion between the Court Commissioner and the plaintiff and failure of FSL Madiwala to examine the LTMs. Upon re-appreciation of the entire record, the Court held that the impugned order suffers from no illegality, infirmity, caprice, perversity or failure of justice warranting Article 227 interference, relying on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan v. Muthalammal AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali v. Jaya (2022) 10 SCC 477. Petition dismissed; liberty reserved to both sides to point out discrepancies, inconsistencies, errors or omissions in the Commissioner's report at final disposal of the suit; Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of the suit pending since 2013, with both parties to cooperate.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1766 WP No. 39293 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 39293 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI JOSEPH, S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO. 67, MOTHER TERESSA ROAD, MARIYANNANAPALYA, H. A. FARM POST, BANGALORE – 560 024

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R. P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SMT. SUSAN ABRAHAM W/O ABRAHAM AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO. 565 G. F. 27^TH MAIN, BTM II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 076

¶15

SRI A. MURALI S/O ARUMUGAM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT SITE NO. 51, AND NO.52 FORMED OUT OF SY NO. 39/2. DASARAHALLI, K. R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 024

¶16

SRI MARIYAPPA S/O LATE JONEASAPPA R/AT MRIYANNANAPALYA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1766 WP No. 39293 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

H. A. FARM POST, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 024

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. BINU M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8214/2013 IN IA NO.17, UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(A) OF CPC, AND SECTION 45 AND 73 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH 28) UNDER ANNEXURE-J, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition by defendant No.3 in O.S.No.8214/2013 on the file of the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28) (for short “the Trial Court”) is directed against the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, whereby the application, I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioner-defendant No.3 under Order XXVI Rule 10 (A) CPC and Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, to refer the disputed thumb impressions of the petitioner once again to the forensic laboratory (FSL) and to submit a report was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1766 WP No. 39293 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-defendant No.3, who is contesting the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff for declaration, permanent injunction and possession and adduced oral and documentary evidence and thereafter filed the aforesaid application, I.A.No.17. After completion of trial, the plaintiff filed an application seeking reference of the disputed thumb impressions with his admitted thumb impressions, which was referred to the FSL, who submitted a report and the petitioner filed objections to the report of the Court Commissioner and also cross-examined him in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant No.3 filed an application seeking reference of the disputed thumb impressions and admitted thumb impressions once again to the FSL for verification. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff, pursuant to which the Trial Court proceeded to pass the following:

¶32

“ORDERS ON IA No.17

¶33

Defendant No.3 has filed the above application under Order XXVI Rule 10 (A) of C.P.C. and also Section 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, to refer the thumb impression once again to the forensic verification. which is found on Ex.P1 the Sale Deed with the specimen thumb impression of the defendant No. 3 and also direct the Commissioner to submit a detailed report on the said document.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:1766 WP No. 39293 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

2. It is contended by the Defendant No.3 that the plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit as against the defendants, and that the defendant herein had denied the coming impression, which was found in the Sale Deed, which was marked on Ex.P1. And that his father has not executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of him in respect of any portion of Survey No.39/2 of Dasarahalli Village and that plaintiff is said to have opted to refer the thumb impression for forensic verification in the year 2018 and after passing the order in the aid petition, the defendant No.3 appeared and has given his specimen signature which was referred to FSL, Madiwala and the said FSL Madiwala has returned the entire document with the sealed cover and the same was opened in the open Court on 05.06.2023. And that the said documents are not examined. Therefore the said Government authority has failed to examine the LTMs and has returned the entire documents and has presented to a court which is not a report which is correct And that the Court Commissioner in collusion with the plaintiff has given a false report dated 30.9.2024. Therefore, on these and other grounds, the defendant No.3 herein has sought for re-sending the said document to another Commissioner.

¶38

3. Heard both sides. Perused the materials available on

¶39

record

¶40

4. Following points arise for my consideration:-

¶41

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

¶42

1. Whether the Applicant / Defendant No.3 has made out a ground for re-referring the matter to another forensic expert for examining the thumb impression?

¶43

2. What order?

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:1766 WP No. 39293 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

5. My findings to the above points are as under:

¶48

Point No.1: In the Negative

¶49

Point No.2: As per final order for the following:

¶50

REASONS

¶51

6. Point No.1: The said Ex.P1 was examined by the Court Commissioner i.e. the FSL Madiwala and have given their detailed report and the said report was received in the open court as stated by defendant No.3 in the averments annexed with the said IA. Now, based upon the same, this defendant has contended that, the Commissioner has not examined the document. On the other hand, it is noted upon Ex.P1 that it was noted and verified as on 13.05.2024 and each and every thumb impression which is found on Ex.P1 is verified by the Commissioner and they have also submitted their report in a sealed cover and the said Court Commissioner was also examined before the Court and cross examined by the defendant No. 3 and in spite of which, the reasons best known to the defendants, the defendants are seeking for sending the said document to the other commissioner.

¶52

7. Further, all the documents which are produced along with the said commissioner report were also received in the open Court and the person who has examined himself and has given his report was also examined before the court as court witness and this defendant has lengthily cross examined the said witness, and in spite of which, the defendant No.3 has sought for sending the said document to another forensic. However, the said application is hit by the principles of constructive res-judicata and therefore, noting these aspects, as of now, the applicant/defend No. 3 has not made out any grounds for re-sending the said thumb impression of defendant No.3 to any other forensics. Therefore, in the line of above discussion, the application is vague as merely

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:1766 WP No. 39293 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the applicant contends as if there is a collusion with the plaintiff and the concerned department. But in order to substantiate the same, the defendant No. 3 has not placed any corroborative materials to show the same

¶57

8. Per contra, the applicant has not made out any grounds of collusion and also the said Government Organization has no vested interest in the case of the plaintiff or in the case of the defendant And further the Court Commissioner was examined before the Court, would have less interest in the report submitted by him. Even in the cross examination of the said Court Commissioner, the defendant No. 3 has not got elicited if there is any vested interest of the said commissioner to give such an opinion in favour of the plaintiff. Merely the report is against the defendant No.3, the defendant No. 3 has sought for referring the said the matter to another Commissioner. However, the said application is devoid of merits and further, applicant has not made out any grounds for re-referring the said matter to another forensic expert for examining the thumb impression of Mr. Joseph, the defendant No.3 herein. Hence, I answer the above point in Negative.

¶58

9. Point No.2: In furtherance of my findings to Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

Interlocutory Application No. 17, filed by the Defendant No.3 under Order-XXVI Rule 10 (A) of C.P.C. and also Section 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, is hereby dismissed.

¶61

Post the matter for Plaintiff's side Arguments.”

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:1766 WP No. 39293 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and

¶66

reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can

¶67

the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – ( 2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya

¶68

– (2022) 10 SCC 477.

¶69

Further, It is always open for the petitioner to point out the discrepancies, inconsistencies, errors, omissions etc., in the report of the Court Commissioner and the evidence submitted by him at the time of final disposal of the suit before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner as well as in favour of the respondents to put forth all their contentions as regards report of the Court Commissioner and the evidence submitted by him before the Trial Court, I do not find

¶70

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:1766 WP No. 39293 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶74

Further, the Since the suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law and both parties are hereby directed to co-

¶75

operate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶76

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶77

BMC

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79

Sri Joseph v. Smt. Susan Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Joseph v. Smt. Susan Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnegowda Vs Thimmegowda

Sri T B Nagaraju Vs Sri Ganganarasaiah

P K Vinaydev Vs Sri S Krishna

Sri. Chikkabyarappa Vs Sri. Ramesh G

Sri Prakash B G Vs Smt Anitha M

Mr. Suraj P., Vs M/S Sourberry E and P LLP