Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.165/2014 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur, filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of agricultural lands at Kaliwal village. The suit was based on two agreements of sale dated 23.5.2006 and 9.10.2010. During the trial, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.3 under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to send the two agreement documents to a fingerprint expert for comparison with the defendant's admitted signatures. The trial court rejected this application by order dated 4.7.2018. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court's discretion in rejecting the application was not perverse or arbitrary. The court noted that the defendant had not disputed the documents in question, and therefore, there was no need for expert opinion at that stage. The plaintiff could still examine the documents himself and seek expert opinion during the evidence stage. The High Court found no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 26 Rule 10A - Expert Opinion - The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application to send documents to a fingerprint expert. The High Court held that the trial court's discretion was not perverse or arbitrary, as the defendant had not disputed the documents. The court noted that the plaintiff could still examine the documents himself and seek expert opinion at the stage of evidence. (Paras 3-4)
B) Evidence Act - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 - Expert Opinion - The court observed that the trial court's refusal to send documents to a fingerprint expert was justified because the defendant did not deny the documents. The High Court declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application (I.A.No.3) to send two agreement of sale documents to a fingerprint expert for comparison, and whether the High Court should interfere with such discretionary order in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 4.7.2018 rejecting I.A.No.3. The court held that the trial court's discretion was not perverse or arbitrary, and the plaintiff could still examine the documents himself and seek expert opinion at the stage of evidence.
Law Points
- Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- Discretion of trial court
- Expert opinion
- Fingerprint expert
- Agreement of sale
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (12) 18
Writ Petition No.104811/2018 (GM -CPC)
Sri Rohit S. Patil (for petitioner), Sri S R Hegde (for respondent)
Shri Mohammedsab S/o. Husainsab Nadaf
Smt. Rukminibai W/o. Krishnarao Kulkarni
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging trial court order rejecting application to send documents to fingerprint expert in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/plaintiff sought quashing of the trial court order dated 4.7.2018 on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.165/2014, which rejected his application to send two agreement of sale documents to a fingerprint expert.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application to send documents to a fingerprint expert, and the plaintiff challenged this order by way of writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur) rejected I.A.No.3 by order dated 4.7.2018.
Issues
Whether the trial court's rejection of the application to send documents to a fingerprint expert was perverse or arbitrary?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's discretionary order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the application for sending documents to a fingerprint expert.
Respondent/defendant supported the trial court's order, contending that the documents were not disputed and the application was unnecessary.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's discretion in rejecting an application to send documents to a fingerprint expert under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act is not interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is perverse or arbitrary. Where the defendant has not disputed the documents, there is no necessity for expert opinion at that stage, and the plaintiff can still seek expert opinion during evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner/plaintiff has produced two documents, which are agreement of sale dated 23.5.2006 and another agreement of sale dated 9.10.2010.
The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the defendant has not disputed the documents.
The discretion exercised by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary.
The petitioner can very well examine himself and seek expert opinion at the stage of evidence.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.165/2014 for specific performance of contract. During trial, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.3 under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send two agreement documents to a fingerprint expert. The trial court rejected the application on 4.7.2018. The plaintiff then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was dismissed on 20.12.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 26 Rule 10A
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 45
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
