Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, who was the defendant in a suit for specific performance (OS No.154/2010), suffered a decree against him. He appealed the decree in RA No.42/2013 before the Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna. During the appeal, he filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to send the disputed document (Ex.P1) for scientific verification of his signature and thumb impression, which he claimed were not his. The respondent-plaintiff opposed the application. The lower appellate court rejected the application by order dated 9.7.2014. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the matter and found that the lower appellate court's rejection was improper. The court noted that the application was filed to ascertain the truth and that the lower court ought to have allowed it. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the lower appellate court to send Ex.P1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for scientific examination of the signature and thumb impression. The court also directed the lower appellate court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously after receiving the FSL report.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 26 Rule 10A - Scientific Verification - The defendant-appellant sought to send the disputed document (Ex.P1) for scientific verification of his signature and thumb impression, which he denied. The lower appellate court rejected the application. The High Court held that the application ought to have been allowed to ascertain the truth, and the rejection was improper. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 - Inherent Powers - The court has inherent powers to order scientific verification to secure the ends of justice. The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application, directing the lower appellate court to send Ex.P1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 CPC for sending the disputed document (Ex.P1) for scientific verification of signature and thumb impression.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna, in RA No.42/2013, and allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 CPC. The court directed the lower appellate court to send the disputed document (Ex.P1) to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for scientific examination of the signature and thumb impression of the appellant. The lower appellate court was also directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously after receiving the FSL report.
Law Points
- Order 26 Rule 10A CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Scientific verification of disputed documents
- Appellate court's discretion
- Interference under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 33
Writ Petition No.38396/2014 (GM-CPC)
S Raju (for petitioner), K M Ravi Kumar and Paramashivaiah (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the lower appellate court rejecting an application for scientific verification of a disputed document in a specific performance suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (defendant in the suit) sought to quash the order dated 9.7.2014 passed on I.A.No.11 in R.A.No.42/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna, and to allow the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A of CPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that the signature and thumb impression on the disputed document (Ex.P1) were not his and sought scientific verification to establish the truth.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in OS No.154/2010 decreed the suit for specific performance against the petitioner. The petitioner appealed in RA No.42/2013. During the appeal, he filed an application for scientific verification, which was rejected by the lower appellate court on 9.7.2014.
Issues
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in rejecting the application for scientific verification of the disputed document under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the signature and thumb impression on Ex.P1 were not his and that scientific verification was necessary to ascertain the truth.
The respondent opposed the application, but the specific grounds of opposition are not detailed in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that when a party disputes the authenticity of a signature or thumb impression on a document, an application for scientific verification under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC should be allowed to ascertain the truth, and the rejection of such an application by the lower appellate court was improper.
Judgment Excerpts
The defendant who has suffered decree of specific performance in OS.No.154/2010 has challenged the judgment and decree passed in the said suit in RA.No.42/2013...
In the said appeal, he has filed an application in IA.2 under Order 26 Rule 10 A r/w Section 151 of CPC, wherein he would state that the signature and thumb impression at Ex.P1 are not the signature and thumb impression of appellant in said appeal, therefore, the same should be sent to scientific verification.
The lower appellate court on appreciation of the application as well as objections raised thereon, has rejected the same by its order dated 9.7.2014, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
Procedural History
The trial court (not specified) decreed the suit for specific performance in OS No.154/2010 against the defendant (petitioner). The defendant appealed to the Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna, in RA No.42/2013. During the appeal, on 10.3.2014, the defendant filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 CPC for scientific verification of the disputed document. The respondent opposed the application. The lower appellate court rejected the application on 9.7.2014. The defendant then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, which was allowed on 14.2.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 26 Rule 10A, Section 151
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
