MARUTI RAMA PATIL Vs. SANJEEV BHAGOJI NERVEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner instituted O.S. No.18/2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Hukkeri against the respondents to pass a decree of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property. The respondents/defendants having f i led written statement, the trial Judge has raised issues on 27.10.2009.

(2.) After trial, IA-VIII having been f i led by plaintif f under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the disputed thumb impressions appearing on Ex.P-9 for comparison with that of the admitted thumb impressions of deceased Bhagoji Tatoba Narvekar appearing on the vakalath, written statement, etc., f i led in O.S. No.250/1997, to a hand-writing expert/finger print expert, for scientif ic analysis, the application having been opposed by fi l ing written statement on 14.02.2013, the trial Judge has dismissed the same on 22.02.2013. Feel ing aggrieved, the plaintif f has fi led this writ petition.

(3.) Sri.M.G.Naganuri, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the plaintif f having contended that Bhagoji Tatoba Narvekar executed a Wi ll in his favour on 03.10.2008 and there being no dispute that respondents 1 and 2 f i led O.S. No.250/1997 in the Court of Civi l Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sankeshwar against Bhagoji Tatoba Narvekar and Bhagoji Tatoba Narvekar having f i led written statement and given evidence and an appl ication fi led to cal l for the record in O.S. No.250/1997 having been al lowed, the respondent having denied the thumb impressions of deceased Bhagoji T.Narvekar on the Wi l l dated 03.10.2008 marked as Ex.P-9, there being a need to send the admitted thumb impressions of the testator Bhagoji T.Narvekar on the vakalath, written statement, etc., f i led in O.S. No.250/1997 for comparison with thumb impression appearing on the Wi ll dated 03.10.2008 marked as Ex.P-9 to a handwriting expert/f inger print expert for scientif ic analysis, IA-VIII has not been lawful ly considered and the order passed dismissing IAVIII is against the settled principles of law. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of SRI.ACHYUT AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT.NANDA AND OTHERS, 2009 ILR(Kar) 87. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order being irrational warrants interference.