B. Veerappa, J.

This is the defendant's writ petition against the Order dated 20.07.2016 on I.A. No.3 in O.S. No.246/2010 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge, Chitradurga rejecting the suit filed by the defendant under Order 26, Rule 10 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Court Commissioner for scientific investigation to verify and compare the undisputed signatures of defendant No.1 found in Exs.P-1 to P-4 and disputed signatures found in Ex.P-6 to P-11.

2. The 1st respondent who is plaintiff/Bank had filed a suit for recovery directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,39,934/- together with interest at 11.5% per annum compounded monthly from the date of the suit till the date of realization contending that the defendants 1 and 2 are the borrower and the guarantor respectively. Defendant No.1 was doing business and he is proprietor of Mruthyunjaya Motors and defendant No.2 was also doing business. Both were having sufficient income in their respective business. The 1st defendant had approached the plaintiff/bank for financial assistance of Rs. 75,000/- as cash credit facility and other bona fide purpose for the said business. Accordingly, the bank had agreed to assist the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant had executed on demand promissory note. The second defendant stood as guarantor for the aforesaid loan transaction. Accordingly, the 1st defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on 28.11.2001 by executing the on demand promissory note with DP Note Delivery Letter with other necessary documents i.e., Form No.12 and Form No.8 to secure an advance against hypothecation of goods for the advance and the defendants have also executed other necessary documents in favour of the bank by agreeing to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounded monthly subjected to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The 2nd defendant had also executed the Guarantor Agreement for advances on 28.11.2001 as a guarantor. It is further case of the plaintiff that in spite of repeated requests, the defendants have not paid the loan amount with accrued interest with costs. Therefore, he has issued notice to the defendants and the defendants sent the reply on 14.05.2009. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. The 2nd defendant/guarantor has not filed written statement. Only the 1st defendant/borrower has filed written statement, denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and prays for dismissal of the suit. After completion of the evidence of both sides, when the matter posted for arguments, the 1st defendant filed application under Order 26, Rule 10 (A) of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Court Commissioner for scientific investigation to verify and compare the undisputed signature of defendant No.1 found in Exs.P-1 to P-4 and disputed signatures found in Exs.P-6 to P-11, contending that he had approached the plaintiff/bank for financial assistance and borrowed only Rs. 60,000/- in the beginning of year 2000 and the said amount was cleared. The plaintiff/bank without giving proper accounts and maintaining proper statement, is claiming time barred debt. As such, the question of repayment does not arise and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for. He further contended that Exs.P-6 to P-11 are all false and forged documents to enforce debt, giving life to the dead account. The signatures found in Exs.P-6 to P-11 documents does not belong to the defendants. They have forged for creating the said documents and therefore it is necessary to verify the undisputed signatures found in Exs.P-1 to P-4. Therefore, hand writing experts required to be appointed for scientific investigation to verify the signatures and to compare the signatures as referred supra and submit his report to this Court. Hence, prayed to allow the application.

4. The said application was resis