AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—The rejection of Plaintiffs IA-15 u/s 151 CPC in O.S.I 165/2002 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, by order dt. 9.6.2010, is called in question in this petition.
Petitioners instituted the suit and during the trial filed IA-11 under Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC to appoint, a Commissioner for scientific examination and comparing the signatures on Ex. D9. That application was allowed on 5.7.2007 nevertheless, according to the Petitioners the document was not forwarded for scientific investigation and therefore Petitioners filed IA- 15 u/s 151 to send the disputed document Ex.D9 to the forensic science laboratory. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections stating that P.W.-1 admitted her signature on Ex. D9 and therefore, there was no necessity to refer the document for expert''s opinion. The court below having noticed that D.W. 1 had identified her signature on Ex. D9 at Ex. D9(a), accordingly rejected the same by the order impugned.
There is force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the court below having not complied with its order dt. 5.7.2007 allowing IA-11 under Order XXVI Rule 10-A Code of Civil Procedure, resulted in filing IA-15 for compliance of that order. It is no doubt true that in the affidavit accompanying IA-15 there is not a whisper over the order dt. 5.7.2007 on IA-11.
Be that as it may it was for the trial court to have perused the order sheet to ascertain as to what order was passed on the application filed by the parties in the matter of appointment of commissioner. Having not done so, injustice is caused to the Petitioners.
Although the order impugned can not be said to be illegal or unjust, nevertheless if the trial court has not complied with the order dt. 5.7.2007 while allowing IA-11 under Order XXVI Rule 10-A, the trial court is directed to do so if not already done since the order impugned does not disclose or animate compliance of order dt. 5.7.2007.
In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of directing the trial court to comply with the order dt. 5.7.2007 on IA-11.