Veeranna vs Madivalappa

G. Narendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent.

The petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC at Muddebihal in S.C. No. 01/2001. The

petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 132/1996. The case of the plaintiff therein was that, the petitioner who is class-II contractor had

borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as hand loan and had executed ""Kaigada Patra"". The plaintiff has further stated that the defendant was a close

acquaintance. He has stated that while discharging his official duties as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the department of Karnataka Electricity

Board and the defendant who is an electrical contractor used to visit the office for submitting his tenders to part take in the execution of projects

being executed by the Karnataka Electricity Board and also that the defendant was also running a business enterprise into the name and style of

Shri Mallikarjun Electric General Store. It is also submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant was the successful tenderer in respect of the Bhagya-

Jyoti Scheme under which scheme the Government had proposed installation of electric lighting to all houses.

The defendant was in need of money and had approached the plaintiff for financial assistance and the plaintiff had advanced the sum of Rs.

15,000/- to the defendant who he describes as a close friend, the defendant entered appearance and has contended that there was no necessary

for him to seek loan of Rs. 15,000/- and that dispute arose between him and the plaintiff on account of the plaintiff demanding a bribe of demand

of Rs. 10,000/- for clearing his bills in respect of Bhagya-Jyoti Scheme and that he had refused to pay the money. It is contended by the plaintiff

that the hand loan deed was written by his scribe but the name of scribe is not forthcoming in the plaint. The hand loan deed is said to have been

executed by the defendant. The defendant has absolutely denied the execution of the deed and he has termed it as concocted and fabricated one.

The parties went to trial on these facts and circumstances. The entire dispute rested on the alleged hand loan deed. Hence, the defendant

thought it fit to have the same referred to a Government recognized expert and seek an expert opinion regarding the authenticity of the document

and for demonstrating that the signature contend therein has not his signature. Hence, he preferred IA-II filed under Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC R/w

151 of CPC, for referring the disputed signature at Ex. P1 to the Government finger expert for scrutinizing and submitting an expert opinion

regarding authenticity of Ex. P1 (a) signature. The prayer in IA.II is extracted herein below:

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Court may be pleased to take the signature of the applicant-defendant

and send them together with the original Kaigada Patra dated 01.12.1995 containing the disputed signature alleged to be that of applicant-

defendant to the Government finger prints experts to examine them and report whether or not both the signatures (admitted and disputed) belongs

to the one and the same person. The applicant is ready and willing to bear the necessary expenses"".

The said application came to be dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 17.06.2000 and suit came to be decreed.

Aggrieved by the order defendant filed CRP 2014/2010. This Court after hearing the parties was pleased to allow the revision petition

disapproving the reasoning accorded by the trial Court for rejecting IA-II. Further more this Court is of the opinion, that the Small Cause Court

ought to have entertained IA-II as the entire case relied upon it. This Court also deemed it proper, that the document ought to have been referred

for expert opinion as it was contended in IA-II and that the said document is a fabricated document and the signature of the defendant had been

forged. In view of the long pendency of the dispute, this Court was pleased to set aside the order of the Small Cause Court and was further

pleased to allow IA-II seeking reference of the document Ex. P1 for opinion of the expert on Ex. P1(a). Further it directed the parties to appear

before the Court on 20.07.2011 and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this Order.

On remand the Court appears to have appointed one C.V. Jayadevi, as CW.1 who rendered an expert opinion. The letter head of Mrs. C.V.

Jayadevi, describes her as handwriting and finger expert and in fact it is marked as Ex. Ps-C1, C2, C3 and C4. The said document came to be

referred to the said expert under covering letter signed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Muddebihal. She has given a categorical finding in her

report dated 23.10.2011 that ""on comparison the disputed signature shows signs of forgery and thereafter she has given fifteen other reasons in

support of her conclusion as to why the disputed signature is a forged signature.

After hearing the parties the trial Court has in fact simply brushed aside the report saying that the report is of no consequence because the said

expert has admitted during the course of cross-examination that she has not obtained any degree nor has she been recognized by the Government

as an expert. It is stated at the bar that the said person has rendered opinion in several cases. Be that as it may, the trial Court having concluded

that the opinion of CW. 1 was not reliable, it ought to have referred the matter to the Government finger expert as prayed in IA-II and as also

directed by this Court. The trial Court having failed to do so has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree in violation of the

directions issued by this Court V/o dated 28.06.2011. The issue being central to the determination of the dispute between the parties and a

specific request having been made by the defendant and the said request having been authorized by this Court, it was mandatory upon the trial

Court to comply with the directions of this Court in letter and spirit.

Even though the reference of the issue to a private person can be condoned the further action of the trial Court cannot be condoned. The matter

having been referred to an expert opinion or to a person who asserts as an expert and which reference was by the Court itself and which reference

was not objected to by the plaintiff could not have become a ground for the trial Court to turn around and reject the opinion. Even assuming the

trial Court was right in rejecting then the only alternative available to the court was to refer it to the Government finger print expert as prayed in IA-

II and IA-II came to be allowed by this Court. On that short point the above Civil Revision Petition No. 2014/2012 is allowed with a direction to

the Small Cause Court to act inconsonance with the order and comply the order dated 28.06.2011 rendered in CRP No. 2048/2010.

Accordingly, the judgment and order rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Muddebihal in S.C. No. 1/2001 is set aside. The matter is

remanded back to the Court for adjudication after referring the Exs.P1 and P1 (a) to the Government finger prints expert or to the Government

Forensic Laboratory for expert opinion and shall thereafter adjudicate the suit on merits.

The parties shall appear before the Small Cause Court on 07.12.2015. The Trial Court shall adjudicate and dispose of the suit within six months

from the date of receipt of the report from the Government finger prints expert or Forensic Science Laboratory.

Civil Revision Petition is ordered as above and allowed accordingly.

In view of the allowing of Civil Revision Petition 2014/2012, the Civil Revision Petition preferred by the plaintiff in Civil Revision Petition

2024/2012 is rejected.