- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225 WP No. 201078 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.201078 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1) LALSAB DIED BY LRS. PEERABASHA, S/O LALSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA. 2. JAHANGIR S/O LALSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O ATHANI, TQ. ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM. 3. RAJESAB S/O LALSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HUSSAINSAB S/O MOULASAB WALIKAR @ DALAWAI, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ATHALATTI, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225 WP No. 201078 of 2025 TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108. 2. MAHIBOOBSAB S/O MOULASAB WALIKAR @ DALAWAI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108. 3. HASHIMSAB S/O DASTAGIRSAB WALIKAR @ DALAWAI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108. 4. GAIBUSAB S/O DASTAGIRSAB WALIKAR @ DALAWAI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108. 5. MURTUZBI W/O BHASASAB KAANI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O MAMADAPUR, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586113. 6. BUDDIMA W/O REHMAN GOUNDI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK R/O BIJJARAGI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586114. 7. REHAMATABI W/O BAPUSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108. 8. SIKANDAR S/O BAPUSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR. AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225 WP No. 201078 of 2025 R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108. 9. BANDENAWAZ S/O BAPUSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108. 10. BANU W/O RAJASAB MULLA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O YALLI HADAGALI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM-591248. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 PASSED BY IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JFMC VIJAYAPURA IN O.S. NO.154/2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND REJECT THE COURT COMMISSIONERS REPORT, B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION DATED 27.02.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-K OF THE PETITIONERS U/O 16 RULE 3 READ WITH ORDER 16 RULE 7A OF CPC FOR SUMMONING THE WITNESS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225 WP No. 201078 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) The petitioners in the instant writ petition have challenged the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 passed in O.S.No.154/2012 by the IV-Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Vijayapura. 2. The Trial Court referred the signatures of one Husensa Moulasa Dalvai (respondent No.1) to an handwriting expert in respect of his signatures on a partition deed dated 31.05.1994, vakalath dated 26.03.2012 and the bank account dated 25.01.2016. 3. The signatures of respondent No.1 on the vakalath and the bank account are admitted. The question to be decided is whether the alleged signature of respondent No.1 on the sale agreement dated 31.05.1994 is genuine or not. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225 WP No. 201078 of 2025 4. The Court Commissioner has submitted a report. There is variation in the signature. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same. It is their contention that the agreement was executed way back in the year 1994 and the signatures on the vakalath as well as bank account has been executed in the year 2012 and 2016 respectively and deliberately respondent No.1 has varied his signature on the subsequent documents. On the said ground, it is prayed that the Court committed an error in accepting the Commissioner’s report. 5. It is seen that subsequent to submission of the Commissioner’s report, the petitioners have filed their objections for accepting the same. However, the Trial Court has rejected the objections of the petitioners and has accepted the Commissioner’s report. While accepting the Commissioner’s report, the Trial Court has observed the following: “It is pertinent to note here itself that, the commissioner is only a piece of evidence, judgments - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225 WP No. 201078 of 2025 will not be solely on the report of the commissioner report. The report of commissioner does not bind the Court. It can be used for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record. In other words such report is not binding on the Court, the Court is free to arrive at its own conclusion. Such evidences are not conclusive. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court sending the documents once again to get the commissioner report is not warranted in the case on hand. The defendant of O.S.No.154/2012 has not made out grounds to reject the commissioner report.” 6. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the Commissioner’s report should not be accepted because respondent No.1 has deliberately signed in a different manner on the vakalath and the bank account. As observed by the Trial Court, Commissioner's report is not binding on the Trial Court and it is only a piece of evidence and the petitioners are at liberty to advance their arguments as to why the same should not be accepted and relied upon while submitting their main arguments. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225 WP No. 201078 of 2025 7. I do not see any error in the order passed by the Trial Court in the light of the observations made by it as aforementioned. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all contentions in respect of the Commissioner's report in due course of proceedings before the Trial Court. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31 CT:SI