Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, per Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking forensic comparison of thumb impressions in a civil suit involving a disputed sale deed. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the petitioners’ mother — the original plaintiff — had never disputed the execution of the registered sale deed during her lifetime, either in her pleadings or testimony.
Observing that the application was filed belatedly at the stage of final arguments, the Court ruled that no scientific examination could be ordered merely to prolong the litigation. Justice Shetty categorically held that:
“When the original plaintiff has not disputed execution of the registered sale deed either in her pleadings or evidence, seeking forensic examination of her thumb impression at a belated stage is wholly unwarranted.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Facts
The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, had approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the trial court’s order dated 8 March 2022 in I.A. No. XIV in O.S. No. 473 of 2012.
In the underlying civil suit, the original plaintiff, Smt. Akhthar Begum, had sought a declaration of title and a permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property situated in Kolar District. The defendant, in his written statement filed on 4 April 2014, relied upon a registered sale deed dated 18 October 2000 (Ex.D7) to assert ownership over the same property.
During the trial, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW-1. She did not deny the execution of the said sale deed and offered no evidence to suggest that the thumb impression on the document was not hers. The sale deed was subsequently admitted in evidence as Ex.D7 during the defendant’s evidence stage.
However, after the plaintiff’s demise and when the case was posted for final arguments, her legal heirs (the present petitioners) filed I.A. No. XIV under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 CPC, seeking appointment of a scientific commissioner to compare the thumb impression on the sale deed with the impressions available on the plaint and vakalatnama in the case.
The trial court rejected the application, holding that the request was belated and devoid of merit, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff can seek forensic comparison of thumb impressions when the original plaintiff never disputed the execution of the document in question.
- Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for scientific examination filed after the suit had reached the stage of final arguments.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that their mother, the original plaintiff, had not been properly advised during the trial and therefore failed to challenge the sale deed earlier. They argued that the registered sale deed dated 18.10.2000 (Ex.D7) was fraudulent and that her thumb impression was forged.
To substantiate their claim, the petitioners invoked Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC, which empowers courts to order scientific investigation or expert examination to verify the authenticity of signatures or thumb impressions. They maintained that comparing the disputed and admitted thumb impressions was essential for discovering the truth and ensuring justice.
They further argued that the trial court erred in rejecting their plea solely on the ground of delay, asserting that truth-seeking should not be curtailed by procedural technicalities, particularly when the controversy involved property rights.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the original plaintiff had categorically admitted the sale deed during her lifetime, and hence, her legal heirs could not now reopen settled issues under the guise of forensic examination.
It was pointed out that no averment denying execution of the sale deed was made in the plaint or in the course of testimony. The respondent further submitted that the application was a delaying tactic, filed more than seven years after the suit’s institution and only after the trial had concluded.
Citing the principle of finality of proceedings, the respondent contended that once the document was admitted and marked as evidence without objection, the petitioners could not later demand scientific verification merely to retract their predecessor’s admissions.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court analyzed Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC, which permits the appointment of a commissioner for scientific investigation, and Section 151 CPC, which preserves the Court’s inherent powers. However, the Court emphasized that such powers cannot be exercised to reopen issues already settled by admissions or inaction.
The Court observed that the timing of the application was crucial — it was filed when the case had already reached the stage of final arguments. It reiterated that applications seeking expert examination must be made at the earliest possible opportunity, particularly when the authenticity of a document forms a core issue in the dispute.
Citing long-standing jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed that once a party has admitted execution of a document either expressly or by conduct, no forensic examination can be ordered to contradict that admission.
Precedent Analysis
Though the judgment did not explicitly cite case law, the reasoning aligns with several precedents where the timing and necessity of forensic evidence were scrutinized:
- K. Raghavendra v. N. R. Sudha, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 435 — Held that belated requests for forensic comparison after evidence closure are liable to be rejected as abuse of process.
- Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126 — Reiterated that admissions in pleadings or evidence are binding and cannot be withdrawn without valid explanation.
- M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39 — Clarified that expert opinion cannot substitute direct evidence, particularly when execution is not disputed earlier.
These authorities collectively reinforce the principle that truth-finding mechanisms must be invoked at the proper stage, and courts should prevent litigants from reopening dormant issues to delay proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Shetty, after perusing the trial court record, noted that:
- The original plaintiff, examined as PW-1, had not denied executing the sale deed dated 18.10.2000.
- She had not alleged that her thumb impression was forged or fabricated at any point during her deposition.
- The document (Ex.D7) was already admitted and marked without objection.
The Court emphasized that scientific examination cannot be permitted merely on speculative allegations raised belatedly by successors-in-interest. The trial court’s order rejecting the application was therefore justified, as the petitioners failed to show any illegality or procedural irregularity.
Justice Shetty concluded that the trial court had acted well within its jurisdiction, and that the writ petition did not warrant interference under Article 227, which confers only limited supervisory powers.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that belated attempts to introduce forensic evidence cannot undo a party’s earlier admissions or revive settled issues. The Court held that since the original plaintiff never disputed the sale deed, her legal heirs could not now seek scientific verification to question its authenticity.
The order reiterates that litigation must end when issues are conclusively determined, and courts must resist efforts to reopen trials under the guise of scientific inquiry.
Implications
This ruling underscores a vital procedural principle: forensic examinations must be sought promptly, not as an afterthought when the trial nears completion. It also clarifies that legal representatives cannot challenge documents admitted by their predecessors, unless fraud or coercion is proven.
The decision strengthens judicial emphasis on finality of litigation and discourages dilatory tactics, ensuring that courts remain focused on timely justice rather than endless re-litigation of concluded facts.
Judgments Referred
- K. Raghavendra v. N. R. Sudha, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 435 — Forensic requests after evidence closure rejected as belated.
- Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126 — Admissions once made are binding unless validly withdrawn.
- M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39 — Expert evidence cannot substitute direct testimony or prior admissions.
FAQs
Q1. Can a party seek thumb impression verification after the case reaches the stage of final arguments?
No. Courts discourage such belated requests as they disrupt the trial process and amount to delaying tactics.
Q2. Are legal heirs allowed to dispute a document admitted by the deceased plaintiff?
Generally, no. Once a document is admitted and execution is not denied by the original plaintiff, successors cannot reopen that issue unless new evidence of fraud emerges.
Q3. What is the scope of the High Court’s supervisory power under Article 227?
It is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or grave procedural irregularities, not to reappreciate evidence or revisit factual findings.
