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 (IA.2) under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to send the document Ex.P1 (allegedly containing his signature and thumb impression) for scientific verification, claiming that the signature and thumb impression were not his. The respondent (plaintiff in the suit) opposed the application. The lower appellate court rejected the application by order dated 9.7.2014, without assigning adequate reasons. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the lower appellate court had not properly considered the application and that the rejection was arbitrary. The High Court held that when the genuineness of a document is disputed, the court should ordinarily allow scientific verification to ascertain the truth. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the lower appellate court was directed to allow the application and send Ex.P1 for scientific verification to an appropriate forensic science laboratory.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Scientific Verification - Order 26 Rule 10A r/w Section 151 CPC - Application for sending document for scientific verification - The defendant-appellant sought to send Ex.P1 for scientific verification to determine the genuineness of his signature and thumb impression - The lower appellate court rejected the application without proper reasoning - Held that when the genuineness of a document is disputed, the court should ordinarily allow scientific verification to ascertain the truth, and rejection without valid reasons is unsustainable (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC seeking scientific verification of signature and thumb impression on a document (Ex.P1) in a specific performance suit.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna, on IA No.11 in RA No.42/2013 is quashed. The lower appellate court is directed to allow the application and send Ex.P1 for scientific verification to an appropriate forensic science laboratory.
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) 69
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 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the lower appellate court rejecting an application for scientific verification of a document in a specific performance suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (defendant in the suit) sought quashing of the order dated 9.7.2014 passed on IA No.11 in RA No.42/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna, and to allow the application under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that the signature and thumb impression on Ex.P1 were not his and sought scientific verification to prove the same.
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 IA.2 under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC, which was rejected by the lower appellate court on 9.7.2014.
Issues
Whether the lower appellate court erred in rejecting the application for scientific verification under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the signature and thumb impression on Ex.P1 were not his and required scientific verification.
Respondent opposed the application, but the specific grounds of opposition are not detailed in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
When the genuineness of a document is disputed, the court should ordinarily allow scientific verification to ascertain the truth. Rejection of such an application without valid reasons is arbitrary and unsustainable.
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 petitioner (defendant) lost the suit for specific performance (OS No.154/2010) in the trial court. He appealed to the Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna (RA No.42/2013). During the appeal, he filed IA.2 under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC on 10.3.2014 seeking scientific verification of Ex.P1. The respondent opposed. The lower appellate court rejected the application on 9.7.2014. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 26 Rule 10A, Section 151
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
