- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052026 NC: 2026:KHC:48889 WP No. 26354 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 26354 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. R. SHEKAR SON OF S. RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. S. VIJAYSHANTHI, WIFE OF R. SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT No.491, 1ST CROSS, GULPET, KOLAR 563101. K.G.F. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARSHITH N BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRINIVASA SON OF RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.212, RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, WHITEFEILD POST, K.R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 066. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052026 NC: 2026:KHC:48889 WP No. 26354 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.07.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 16/2025 IN O.S. NO.239/2022 BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Harshith N. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 30.07.2026, whereby the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the CPC came to be allowed, appointing an advocate as the Court Commissioner for recording the evidence of the advocate and the notary. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that the evidence of the advocate and the notary is required to be recorded and, in view of the medical condition of the said witness and the fact that the witness is bedridden and is unable to move from one place to another. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052026 NC: 2026:KHC:48889 WP No. 26354 of 2026 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no evidence to suggest that the witness is unwell or unable to move from one place to another. It is further submitted that the trial Court has mechanically allowed the application, permitting the evidence of the witness to be recorded through the Court Commissioner. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. In the impugned order, the trial Court has appointed an advocate for the purpose of recording the evidence of the advocate and notary, who is the scribe of the agreement dated 19.02.2013, which is in dispute, on the ground that the scribe is unwell, bedridden, and unable to move from one place to another. Further, recording of evidence by appointing Commissioner is one of the permissible mode for recording of evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052026 NC: 2026:KHC:48889 WP No. 26354 of 2026 6. In the facts of the present case, the impugned order is justified. No ground is made out for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9