Sri. K. Shankarappa, Lakshmidevamma and Others vs Smt. Chikkamma, Sri. Chikkanna and Sri. Doddaiah

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Sri. K. Shankarappa, instituted O.S.No. 138/1988 against Smt. Chikkamma W/o Sri. Hanumanthaiah, to pass a decree for specific performance of contract as per agreement of sale dated 08.06.1987. The said suit was later renumbered as O.S.No. 08/1989. Suit having been contested, after raising of the issues, trial has taken place. IA.No. 40 filed under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC r/w Sec. 45 of Evidence Act, was allowed and the report of the expert has also been received. The expert/Commissioner has deposed in the suit. LRs of deceased plaintiff filed IA.No. 44 u/s 151 of CPC to pass an order for conducting and conclusion of an enquiry with respect to tampering of signature of PW.3 on Ex. P-1 in accordance with the order dated 18.12.2010 on IA.No. 43. The trial Court has passed an order dated 13.06.2012, whereby, IA.No. 44 was dismissed. The same has been questioned in this petition.

Sri. B.S. Murali, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is irrational. He submitted that keeping the administrative enquiry pending, trial Court should not proceed with the case and the outcome of the enquiry will have a bearing on the suit.

IA.No. 43 having been filed, an order was passed on 18.12.2010, to conduct enquiry in respect of the alleged tampering of signature of PW.3 appearing on Ex. P-1. The said enquiry is on the administrative side. The result of the enquiry having no material bearing for deciding of the suit, in view of the report of the expert, the trial court has passed the impugned order. The suit is to be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been brought on record by both the parties. The tampering of signature of PW.3 on Ex. P-1 being the subject matter of an administrative enquiry, the same having no relevance for deciding of the lis between the parties, the trial Court is justified in passing the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from material irregularity and hence, no interference in the matter is warranted.

In the result, petition fails and shall stand rejected. The trial Court shall decide the suit on its merit, keeping in view the evidence which has been brought on record by both the parties and the finding recorded on IA.No. 44 shall not adversely effect the interest of either of the parties.