Dismissed

Sri. Abhilash Bhaskaran v. Smt. Pushapavathi

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/10434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by plaintiffs challenging their trial court's order rejecting an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner. The High Court held that verifying existence of a building is not crucial at this stage as plaintiffs are required to produce documents and photographs prima facie, and can approach the trial court later after completing t

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no appointment of Court Commissioner ordered.

Sri. Abhilash Bhaskaran Vs Smt. Pushapavathi — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20019 WP No. 10434 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.10434 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI ABHILASH BHASKARAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SRI K. BHASKARAN R/AT NO.149/30 (113) 8TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT (SECTOR-1) BENGALURU-560 102,

¶8

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SRI AJESH BHASKARAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SRI K. BHASKARAN R/AT NO.149/30 (113) 8TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT (SECTOR-1) BENGALURU-560 102,

¶10

BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI ANOOP BHASKARAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O BHASKARAN R/AT NO.149/30 (113) 8TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-1 BENGALURU-560 102.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI BINU M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:20019 WP No. 10434 of 2024

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. PUSHAPAVATHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O. SRI KUBENDRA REDDY D/O. LATE SRI A.V. RAMAIAH R/AT NO.1870, 21ST MAIN 15TH 'B' CROSS, HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-1, BENGALURU-560 102

¶17

REPRESENTED BY HER SPL. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI A. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE A. MALIKAJAPPA.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-16), VIDE ITS ORDER, DATED 19.02.2024 ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.7398/2022, HEREWITH FURNISHED AS ANNEXURE 'A', THEREBY DIRECTING THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9, READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND TO PASS AN ORDER TO APPOINT A COURT COMMISSIONER TO SUBMIT A REPORT AS PRAYED FOR.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20019 WP No. 10434 of 2024

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.7398/2022, the plaintiffs therein have preferred this writ petition.

¶24

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the original suit. They filed I.A.No.2 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC in the said original suit with the following prayers:

¶25

”That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the plaintiffs humbly pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass an order to appoint a Court Commissioner to submit a report on existence of residential building over the suit schedule property, age of the building and the existence of the suit schedule property along with photographs of the same, in the intent of justice and equity."

¶26

The said original suit is filed with the following

¶27

prayers:

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20019 WP No. 10434 of 2024

¶29

"Wherefore the Plaintiffs most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the Plaintiffs for:-

¶30

(a) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, her agents, servants or anybody acting on behalf of her from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

¶31

(b) Pass such other relief/s as deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case."

¶32

The trial court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order of the trial court and to appoint a Court Commissioner as prayed for by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶33

The original suit is filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. To prove the same, they are required to produce necessary documents to prima facie show that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and that

¶34

they are in possession of the same. In respect of

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20019 WP No. 10434 of 2024

¶36

existence of the building, they are required to produce the necessary photographs. Age of the building is immaterial

¶37

to decide the issue on hand. Similarly, they cannot get a Commissioner appointed to verify the existence of a building or the suit schedule property. Furthermore, it is submitted that the matter is posted for plaintiffs' evidence now. If there is any requirement for appointment of a Commissioner in respect of the existence of a residential building, the same can be made after completion of the plaintiffs' evidence and the trial court if it feels necessary

¶38

can allow it or dismiss the application. Thus, the petitioners have not made out a case for appointment of a Court Commissioner at this juncture. I do not see any error in the order passed by the trial court.

¶39

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

hkh.

Sri. Abhilash Bhaskaran v. Smt. Pushapavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Abhilash Bhaskaran v. Smt. Pushapavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bar Association (Registered), Sagar, Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Sri L Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramachandrappa Vs Smt. Shyamalamma

Sri. P Thippaiah Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt Lakshmidevamma Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Munivenkatamma Vs Ramanjanaiah