Decree holder sought appointment of a Commissioner to demarcate partition schedule properties during execution; the Trial Court refused as properties were already divided per compromise sketch. The High Court found no error apparent on the face of that order and dismissed the revision petition.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:49737 CRP No. 16 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 16 OF 2024 (EX)
BETWEEN:
SRI. J. C. RUDRA SHARMA S/O LATE J CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS NO.6, RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA I CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD NEAR 9TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560 018.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S R SREEPRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
J. C. VISWESWARA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 186/8, SIRUR PARK ROAD SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 040.
Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G V DAYANANDA., ADVOCATE AND SRI. M PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023 DISMISSIN THE EXECUTION PETITION IN EX.123/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:49737 CRP No. 16 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Trial Court in Execution No.123/2018, wherein the petitioner’s request for the appointment of a Commissioner to direct the Officer/Director of the City Survey Department to demarcate the schedule properties as per the sketch annexed to the execution petition was rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:49737 CRP No. 16 of 2024
properties by metes and bounds at the time of entering into the compromise. Additionally, the parties had already been put in possession of their respective shares, and the properties were demarcated. The decree holder did not challenge the final decree passed by the Trial Court.
Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE
HR
1 issue framed by the court
Was the Trial Court justified in rejecting the decree holder's application for appointment of a Commissioner to demarcate properties in execution, where shares were already demarcated by metes and bou
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. J. C. Rudra Sharma
J. C. Visweswara
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
