Allowed¶50

Smt Indira v. K Shrinivas Rao

Civil – Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025WP/47386/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J., 12.12.2025), WP No. 47386 of 2017 (GM-CPC). Keywords: Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC; appointment of Court Commissioner; identification of suit schedule property; local inspection; pending regular appeal; deferral of interlocutory application impermissible; suit for delivery of possession; R.A.No.77/2007; Belthangady / Puttur courts; Article 227 writ; follows Smt. Nithilakshi v. Dakshina Kannada Zilla Panchayath (W.P. No. 42757/2014, dt. 17.10.2014).

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.09.2017 in R.A.No.77/2007 set aside; First Appellate Court directed to consider the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC in accordance with law and pass orders; no order as to costs. ¶50

Smt Indira Vs K Shrinivas Rao — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the court below could defer consideration of the appellant's application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify the suit schedule property, instead of deciding it on merits during the pendency of R.A.No.77/2007.

¶45

Court's answer

When the appellant disputes the existence or identity of the property, it is appropriate for the Court to entertain an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner, as the Commissioner's report would aid the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on its merits.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the view in Smt. Nithilakshi (supra), an appellate Court must consider an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner and pass appropriate orders on merits; it cannot defer the consideration along with the main appeal.

¶46

Key takeaways

The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2017 passed in R.A.No.77/2007 is set aside.ratio¶50
The First Appellate Court is directed to consider the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC in accordance with law and pass orders.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil - Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Regular Appeal R.A.No.77/2007 against decree for delivery of possession in O.S.No.157/2013 - Appellant's application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify the suit schedule property deferred by the court below to be considered along with the main appeal - Held, when the existence or identity of the property is disputed, it is appropriate for the Court to entertain such an application, as the Commissioner's report would aid the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on its merits; an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner must be considered on merits and cannot be deferred along with the main appeal (following Smt. Nithilakshi v. Dakshina Kannada Zilla Panchayath, W.P. No. 42757/2014, dt. 17.10.2014) - Impugned order dated 15.09.2017 set aside; First Appellate Court directed to consider the application in accordance with law and pass orders - Writ petition allowed; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53144 WP No. 47386 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 47386 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. INDIRA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR SURESH BHAT S/O LATE VEDAVYASA BHAT AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A KEELAKA HOUSE LAILA VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

K. SHRINIVAS RAO

¶16

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶17

GEETHA MATHEW D/O SHRINIVAS RAO AGE:MAJOR C/O KATHYAYINI STORES BELTHANGADY POST BELTHANGADY KASBA VILLAGE BELTHANDAGY TALUK, DK - 574 214.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53144 WP No. 47386 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ARAVINDA RAO

¶21

S/O SHRINIVAS RAO, C/O KATHYAYINI STORES, BELTHANGADY POST, BELTHANGADY KASBA VILLAGE, BELTHANDAGY TALUK, DK - 574 214.

¶22

SMT. CHITRA NAYAK, W/O SRIDHAR NAYAK, R/O NEAR SL TEMPLE, PANEMANGALORE,

¶23

BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211.

¶24

SMT. MITHRA KAMATH W/O MADHAV KAMATH AGED 59 YEARS R/O GURVAYANAKERE BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 214.

¶25

SMT. GEETHA KINI W/O LATE P. UPENDRA KINI AGED 56 YEARS R/O GURUVAYANAKERE BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 214.

¶26

SMT. MUKTHA G. PAI W/O V. PAI AGED 52 YEARS R/AT NEAR TALUK OFFICE BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 214.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(SERVIDE OF NOTICE TO R2 AND R6, HELD SUFFICIENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2025; R1, R3, R4, R5 SERVED)

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53144 WP No. 47386 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD15.9.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.77/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JDUGE [SD] AND ADDITIONAL CJM PUTTUR AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.09.2017 passed in R.A.No.77/2007 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division and Additional CJM, Puttur.

¶36

Sri.Sachin. B.S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal in R.A.No.77/2007 challenging the judgment of the trial Court wherein the respondent's suit for delivery of possession was decreed and in the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for identification of the plaint suit schedule property in the said

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53144 WP No. 47386 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

application, which was not considered on merits, but under the impugned order, it was ordered to defer its consideration along with the appeal. It is submitted that the dispute is with regard to the identification of the property and once the Report is available before the Appellate Court it would aid the Appellate Court to decide the lis between the parties in a proper way. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Nithilakshi and Another Vs. Dakshina Kannada Zilla Panchayath and Another in W.P.No.42757/2014 is disposed of on 17.10.2014, seeks to allow the petition.

¶40

Notice on the respondents is served, but there is no representation.

¶41

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶42

The records indicate that the respondents have filed O.S.No.157/2013 against the petitioner for relief of delivery of possession, the said suit came to be decreed on 15.06.2007. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Regular Appeal in

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53144 WP No. 47386 of 2017

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

R.A.No.77/2007, which is pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada. In the said appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking the appointment of Court Commissioner to identify the property in the suit schedule. The trial Court under the impugned order, deferred the consideration of the application by ordering that the said application shall be considered along with the main appeal.

¶46

It is to be noticed that when the appellant is disputing the existence or identity of the property, it would be appropriate for the Court to entertain such an application, so that the Court Commissioner can give actual Report to the court below, which would aid the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on its merits. This Court in the case of Smt.Nithilakshi (supra) has observed that the appellate Court shall consider the application for appointment of Court Commissioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and it cannot defer the consideration along with the main appeal.

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:53144 WP No. 47386 of 2017

¶48

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Considering the nature of relief sought, the contentions advanced and taking note of the decision of the Coordinate Bench, I am of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.09.2017 passed in R.A.No.77/2007 is set aside. The First Appellate Court is directed to consider the application filed under order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC in accordance with law and pass orders.

¶51

No order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶53

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt Indira v. K Shrinivas Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Indira v. K Shrinivas Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Golden Gate Properties Limited Vs Mr Basavaraju

Sri Gurumurthy Vs Smt Munilakshmamma

M/S. Emudhra Limited Vs Shri. Vinni Singhal

Mr Sreejith Purushothaman Vs Sri B L Kodanda Ramaiah

Beerappa Vs Jagadhish

Sri B Venkateshwara Bhat Vs Sri B Subrahmanya Bhat