The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to appoint a Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The original suit was for a bare injunction regarding a house site, and the High Court held no ground existed to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.109969/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.GANGAMMA W/O LATE U.GOVINDAPPA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O 2N D WARD, TORANAGALLU VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK, BELLARI DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI.PATIL M.H. & H.M.PATIL, ADVS.)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.XIV DATED 18.04.2019 BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANDUR BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.XIV VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.04.2019 on I.A.No.14 in
O.S.NO.108/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sandur.
respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.108/2014 filed for bare injunction. Before commencement of evidence, the defendant filed application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC which was rejected. Subsequently, during the course of evidence and before completion of evidence, I.A.No.14 came to be
3
filed by the defendants under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC to appoint the Technical Person, i.e., Thasildar, Sandur or Taluk Surveyor, Sandur as Court Commissioner to conduct the survey and local inspection of item Nos.1 and 2 bearing survey No.20/C2/a measuring 1.78 acres and survey No.20/D.1 measuring 1.81 acres situated at Torangallu village. The plaintiff filed his objection to the application opposing the prayer. The trial Court considering all the contentions raised by the parties under impugned order rejected I.A.No.14 filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC.
4
1200 Sq.ft. The suit is only in respect of house site and appointment of Court Commissioner as sought for by the petitioner would not arise. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
MBS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the order of the Civil Judge rejecting the appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.
Whether there is a ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution given that the sought properties are not suit schedule properties.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT.GANGAMMA W/O LATE U.GOVINDAPPA
U.SHANKRAPPA S.O LATE U.THIMMAPPA
MANJUNATH S/O LATE U.GOVINDAPPA
SMT.UPPARA PARVATHAMMA W/O DYAVANNA
S.G. PANDIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
