DAYASHANKAR Vs. KODANDARAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders dated 4 -2 -2012 and 1 -3 -2013 passed on I.A. Nos. 6 and 8 respectively in O.S. No. 2210 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional First Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mysore, are challenged in these writ petitions by the defendant/petitioner. The facts in brief are as under:

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff had denied the execution of the receipt dated 23 -8 -1997. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 8 to appoint a handwriting expert as commissioner and to send the documents dated 23 -8 -1997 produced by the petitioner relating to the receipt of Rs. 4.25 lakhs for comparison of the disputed signatures of the respondent/plaintiff along with the admitted signature of the plaintiff and to have a report thereon so as to find out whether the disputed signatures appearing on the document are of the respondent/plaintiff or not. In the said application, the respondent filed objections. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties, rejected I.A. No. 8 filed by the petitioner, assailing the orders on I.A. Nos. 6 and 8, these writ petitions are filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri Narayana Sharma appearing for the petitioner contended that it was necessary for the issuance of commission and to send the document i.e., the receipt dated 23 -8 -1997 of Rs. 4.25 lakhs signed by the plaintiff/respondent to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of the plaintiff with the admitted signature of the plaintiff as the execution of the same was disputed by the respondent. The determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act depends upon the said receipt of Rs. 4.25 lakhs executed by the respondent and in such circumstances, it is necessary to examine the genuineness of the document disputed by the plaintiff/respondent. Accordingly, sought for allowing the writ petition.