Writ Petition filed by plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of an application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for spot inspection of schedule property. The Court held that the Commission cannot be appointed merely for collecting evidence or proving existence of property and dismissed the petition.
Writ Petition dismissed as devoid of merits.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
W.P. NO.5994 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
W/O SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.4 BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR PANDURANGA LAYOUT, PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560057.
REP. BY THEIR SPA HOLDER SRI DEVARAJ M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.498 MARUTI NILAYA BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560057
2
...PETITIONERS
(BY MISS GOWHAR UNNISA, ADVOCATE)
AND
3
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2022, PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU, IN O.S.NO.8596/2015, DISMISS THE IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O 26 RULE 9 R/W SEC 151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 8596 of 2015 on the file of the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 19.02.2022 passed on the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.
4
Code of Civil Procedure as per Annexure-C, seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner to conduct spot inspection of ‘A’ schedule property and to submit report with sketch in respect of measurement of the suit schedule property. The said application was resisted by the defendants. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 19.02.2022, dismissed the application and feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have presented this Writ Petition.
5
argued in support of the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
6
In that view of the matter, finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper and same does not call for interference of this Court. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits.
Sd/JUDGE
SB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Court Commissioner should be appointed to conduct spot inspection and collect evidence regarding the existence of suit schedule property when the suit seeks declaratory relief.
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for appointment of a Court Commission for measurement and sketch of the property.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's finding that it is the petitioner's onus to prove existence of the property by evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SHRIDHAR
SUJATHA
PAVITHRA
PAVAN
AKBARI BANU
ASLAM KHAN
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
