WP.100767/2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

W.P.No.100767/2016 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

Smt.Neelawwa Naik @ Lamani, W/o.Chaudappa Naik @ Lamani, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Hulgi, Tq. & District: . ..PETITIONER

(By Sri Neelendra D.Gunde & Sri Sunil S.Desai, Advs.)

AND:

Smt.Drakshayanamma Gorlekoppa @ , W/o.Basavantayya Gorlekoppa @ Binnal, Age: Major, R/o.Hulgi-munirabad, Tq. & Dist: Koppal. ..RESPONDENT

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of , praying to quash the order dated 06.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.25 in O.S.No.158/2008 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC-Koppal thereby dismissing the I.A.No.25 as per Annexure-A and etc.

This writ petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day the Court made the following:- WP.100767/2016 2

ORDER

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of her application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) CPC requesting the Court below to send the Agreement of Sale – Ex.P14 to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signature of the defendant for the opinion of the expert. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that defendant in her written statement and in the examination-in-chief has admitted the thumb impression found on Ex.P14 – Agreement of Sale. She has contended in the written statement that the said stamp paper had been given by way of security for the loan. Therefore, Court below has found that plaintiff had to prove that it was an Agreement of Sale and not a document executed by way of security for the loan amount as urged by the defendant.

2. In other words, in view of the admission of the defendant of her thumb impression found on Ex.P14, the Court below has found it wholly unnecessary to call for the opinion of the expert by referring the document for comparison of the disputed thumb mark with the admitted thumb impression of the defendant. WP.100767/2016 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the written statement. Defendant has not denied her thumb impression on the document in question. She has contended that though she had repaid the loan amount, blank document on which her thumb impression was affixed had not been returned to her. In such circumstances, as rightly held by the

Court below, there is no need to obtain the opinion of the expert.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

PKS