- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31741 W.P. No.23740/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23740/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. RAMESHA S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2. SRI. K. LOKESHA S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT. NO.1352 TAMIL COLONY, HALAHALLI KERE MANDYA 571401. 3. SMT. PADMA W/O RAVI D/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT RAMAMANDIRA STREET SHIVAPURA TALUK MANDYA CITY 571401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. L. RAJA, ADV.,) AND: SRI. T. POTHEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMAYEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT 1ST CROSS, LABOUR COLONY MANDYA CITY 571 401. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31741 W.P. No.23740/2021 (BY SRI. VEERESHA K, ADV., FOR SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.20.3.2021 PASSED IN IA NO.2 BY THE II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MANDAY IN O.S.NO.213/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-G & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.03.2021 passed on IA.No.2 in OS.No.213/2017 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.L.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money. In the said suit, the defendants filed an application seeking to send the admitted signatures of the defendants in the vakalath, written statement etc., along with the disputed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31741 W.P. No.23740/2021 signature found on the promissory note to a finger print expert for comparison, which came to be rejected by the trial Court as the same is premature. At the outset, he submits that the petitioners may be granted liberty to file a fresh application after the conclusion of the trial. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Veeresha K., learned counsel for Sri.H.B.Chandrashekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly concedes with the said position and seeks to dispose of the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The trial Court rejected IA.No.2 filed by the defendants under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) r/w Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking to refer the admitted signatures of the defendants available on the vakalath, written statement with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31741 W.P. No.23740/2021 disputed signature found on the promissory note, for comparison by a finger print expert. The said application was adjudicated by the trial Court and rejected the same on the ground that the same was premature. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has adduced the evidence and that the defendants are yet to adduce their evidence. In the circumstances, in my considered view, the writ petition needs to be disposed of by permitting the defendants to file a fresh application after conclusion of the trial, if the need arises. 6. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioners/defendants to file a similar application after conclusion of the trial, if need arises. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32