ACHYUT Vs. NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioners have called in question the order on I.A. No. 20 dated 1-8-2007 in O.S. No. 22/2002 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Belgaum.

(2.) THE petitioners are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are defendant Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the aforesaid suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the Court below.

(3.) SRI Datar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have specifically pleaded that there is a prior partition between the parties in respect of the suit schedule properties as per the memorandum of partition-Ex.D1. Defendant No.3 in her evidence has denied her signature or the said document. Similarly, the plaintiff also denied her signature on the said document. Therefore, an enquiry is necessary into the question, which can be done by the scientific investigation as provided in Order 26 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N. Thimmajamma And Others (AIR 1959 SC 443) and the decision of this Court in the case of Chikkana Vs Lokesha And Others (ILR 2001 KAR 2681). On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have sought to justify the order of the trial Court.