- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4939 WP No. 106280 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 106280 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. DALALI JAMBAYA S/O DALALI HULIGAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: 27TH WARD, BEHIND MILAN PETROL BUNK, CHAPRADHALLI, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYNAGAR-587 201. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOURABH R.MIRJE AND SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O A. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: NEAR HUDA OFFICE/ISR CIRCLE, 3RD WARD, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYNAGAR-587 201. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4939 WP No. 106280 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri.Shivaraj Bollolli and Sourabh R.Mirje., counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. After the service of the notice, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement. The Court framed the issues. The documents were marked and evidence was recorded. The case was set down for arguments. Then, the defendant moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeks the appointment of a Court Commissioner for scientific investigation of his disputed and admitted signatures. The plaintiff filed objections. The Trial Court vide order dated 15.10.2024 rejected the application. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of the writ petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4939 WP No. 106280 of 2024 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The facts of the case are quite simple and the issue relates to rejection of the application for appointment of the Court Commissioner. An application for appointment of the Court Commissioner for scientific investigation was applied by the defendant when the case was set down for arguments. The defendant wanted a scientific investigation of his signatures that were found on Ex P-2 Pages 1 to 3 and his signature on Ex P-8 with that of his admitted signatures on the suit summons, vakalathnama, and written statement. He contended that the plaintiff had created the suit agreement. However, he admitted in his chief examination about his signatures. He contends that he had put his sign thinking that the transaction was a loan transaction. If the defendant admits his signature, then there is no need to send it for scientific investigation. Moreover, there is an inordinate delay in applying. The Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and rightly rejected the application. I find no grounds to interfere with the same. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4939 WP No. 106280 of 2024 Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 23