BHARATIYA SAMSKRITHI VIDHYAPITH Vs. G PARTHASARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this civil revision petition under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, is the respondent-tenant in HRC.679 of 1975 on the file of the III Addl Civil Judge, Bangalore City and challenges the order made by the Court below on 19-1-1976 dismissing IA-XI in which petitioner sought to have the handwriting in Ext.R27 sent to the Hand Writing Expert attached to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, for the purpose of comparing disputed writing in the said Ext.R27 with the exemplar writings of witness, RW.3, examined in the case.

(2.) The landlord, respondent herein, sought the eviction of petitioner on several grounds. In the course of his evidence petitioner sought to dis place the alleged bona fides of the requirement of the landlord by alleging that the landlord had through the mediation of R. Gopalaswamy negotiated a sale of the property concerned in the proceedings to the petitioner, and that the said Gopalaswamy, allegedly in exercise of his authority as such agent of the landlord, held negotiations with the petitioner in the matter of the proposed sale, in the course of which the writing, Ext.R27 in the hand of the said Gopalaswamy came into existence. However, when the petitioner examined the said Gopalaswamy as RW.3 on his side, the witness disappointed the petitioner and denied that he was ever authorised to or did negotiate a sale of the premises in question on behalf of the landlord, and that the said Ext.R.27 was in his writing. Petitioner sought and the Court below granted permission to cross-examine RW.3.

(3.) The application-IA-XI was thereafter made by the petitioner purporting to invoke provisions of Rule 1 of Order 26 read with S.151 of the CPC and praying that Ext.R27 and the exemplar writings of RW.3 be sent to the band writing expert, attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Bangalore, for comparison and opinion. On this application, the Court below made an order which reads : With regard to TA-11, it is an application for petting the writing in Ext.R27 (compared) with example w'riting of PW.3. RW.3 is not a partv to case. He was treated as ' hostile ' of the respondent. Even if the witness had written Ext.R.27, that would not constitute an admission on the part of the petitioner. Even if RW.3 had turned hostile as contended by the respondent, the contents in Ext.P27 would not be a substantive piece of evidence against the petitioner. That being so, there is no need to refer the matter to the expert on hand writing. With regard to appraisal of the evidence of PW.3, the (Court) it self (could) examine the record and appreciate things. Hence, the two applications are dismissed." The correctness of this order is questioned in this petition. 3. From a reading of the order of the Court below it becomes clear that the learned Civil Judge was of the view that Ext.R27 was used by the tenant in the course of the cross-examination of PW.3 only for the limited purpose of testing the integrity and credit of PW.3 and to contradict his evidence with reference to previous inconsistent statements allegedly contained in the said Ext.R27. The conclusion of the learned Civil Judge is consistent with and explicable only on the basis of the view that' Ext.R27 was used only for purposes envisaged in S.I45 of the Evidence Act. In this view of the matter, he held that even if Ext..R27 was proved for this purpose, it would not have substantive testimonial value.