Karnataka High Court
WP/26354/2026 of R. SHEKAR Vs SRINIVASA on 9 September 2026
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
HC-KAR
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
HC-KAR
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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.
HC-KAR
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.
HC-KAR
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