Dismissed¶58

M/S. Fine Homes, v. Mrs. Sayeeda Farhath

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2026WP/18956/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 18956 of 2026 (GM-CPC); NC: 2026:KHC:31413; decided 24 June 2026 by Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti; Article 227 writ petition; dismissal of I.A.No.4 seeking appointment of Court Commissioner for local inspection; Commercial O.S.No.831/2025; suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages; Issue No.6 whether defendants vacated suit premises on 21.02.2024; burden of proof on defendants; service apartment; security deposit Rs.15 lakhs repaid; evidence collection in suit not proper; observations not binding opinion; petition dismissed; pending I.As closed.

What did the court decide?

In a suit, this kind of evidence collection through appointment of a Court Commissioner is not proper; the trial court rightly dismissed the application, and this Court finds no reason to interfere. ¶56

M/S. Fine Homes, Vs Mrs. Sayeeda Farhath — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31413 WP No. 18956 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18956 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. FINE HOMES, BY ITS PARTNERS

¶10

A) MR. KHADAR IQBAL, S/O MR. N.ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶11

B) MRS. SABIHA, W/O MR. KHADAR IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.12/9, STEPHENS ROAD, OPP. HASNATH GIRLS HOSTEL, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.

¶14

ALSO AT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NO.4CC-534, "MANOR ABODE", PID NO- 88-254-4CC-534, SITUATED AT HRBR LAYOUT, 2^ND BLOCK, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶15

MR. KHADAR IQBAL, S/O MR.N.ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31413 WP No. 18956 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MRS. SABIHA,

¶19

W/O MR. KHADAR IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.12/9, STEPHENS ROAD, OPP. HASNATH GIRLS HOSTEL, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. SKANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

MRS. SAYEEDA FARHATH, D/O MR. S.FEROZ AHMED, W/O MR. SAMIULLAH SHARIEFF, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.223, SEPPINGS ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶24

MRS. ARIFA ANEES, D/O MR. S.FEROZ AHMED, W/O MR. ANEES AHMED, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, CHIMMASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, TASKER TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 051.

¶25

MRS. RAFIA BEGUM, D/O MR. S.FEROZ AHMED, W/O MR.YASEEN SHARIFF.M.A, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31413 WP No. 18956 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

R/AT NO.32/1, SPENCER ROAD CROSS, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.

¶29

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER MR. MOHAMED SAMIULLA SHARIFF, S/O LATE MR. ZAIAULLA SHARIFF MOHAMED, HUSBAND OF MRS. SYEEDA FARHATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.223, SEPPINGS ROAD, BHARATHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO 3)

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WP WITH COSTS; QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED ON IA NO.4 PASSED BY THE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU IN COM. OS NO.831/2025, CCH-85 DATED 09.06.2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - F.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the

¶37

orders passed in I.A.No.4 in Commercial O.S.No.831/2025 dated 09.06.2026, passed by the L XXXIV Additional City Civil Judge Bengaluru, the defendants are before this Court.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:31413 WP No. 18956 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

2. The respondents herein have filed a suit for

¶42

eviction and for arrears of rent and damages. After the evidence on behalf of both the parties was concluded, the present I.A was filed seeking the appointment of a Court Commissioner to prove issue No.6 in the suit, i.e., whether the defendants have vacated the suit premises, for local inspection to ascertain the persons who have been in possession of the suit schedule premises. That came to be dismissed by the order impugned. While dismissing the applications, the Court observed that it is specifically stated that the defendants have vacated the suit premises on 21.02.2024 and that the plaintiffs have repaid the security deposit amount of Rs.15 lakhs. Considering the defence raised by the defendants, the Court has framed the issue and cast the burden on the defendants to prove that they have vacated the premises on 21.02.2024. If the defendants have vacated the suit schedule premises on 21.02.2024 and the plaintiffs have repaid the security deposit, the same can be proved by adducing cogent

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31413 WP No. 18956 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

evidence. As the plaintiffs let out the suit schedule premises for a service apartment, if a Court Commissioner is appointed, he will not be in a position to ascertain the facts that the defendants have vacated the suit schedule premises, and some other tenants have come into possession of the suit schedule premises. The Court has further observed that the defendants have not made out bona fide grounds to reopen the case and permit them to file the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner, and that they have failed to make out bona fide grounds for the appointment of the Court Commissioner, and accordingly dismissed the same.

¶46

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionersdefendants submits that it is the specific case of the defendants that they are not in occupation of the property, and that an issue is framed casting the burden upon the defendants to prove that they have vacated the premises. In these circumstances, if the Court Commissioner is appointed to inspect the premises, he will be able to

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:31413 WP No. 18956 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

record who is in occupation of the premises. The Court has failed to consider this aspect, and if the Court Commissioner is not appointed, that would cause a lot of hardship to the defendants.

¶51

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Caveator - plaintiff submits that the premises are used as a service apartment, the defendants are not residing in the premises, and no useful purpose would be served by allowing this application. The Court has rightly dismissed the petition.

¶52

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record, the Court finds that the petitioner has filed this application to appoint the Court Commissioner to inspect the premises and collect evidence regarding who is in possession of the property. According to the plaintiff, it is a service apartment, the defendants are not residing in the said premises, and, even if the Court Commissioner is appointed, no useful purpose would

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:31413 WP No. 18956 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

be served. In a suit, this kind of evidence collection is not proper, and the Court has rightly dismissed the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere and deems it appropriate to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶59

ii. Any observations made by this Court while disposing of this I.A. shall not be construed as an expression of this Court's opinion. The Court shall decide the petition in accordance with the law.

¶60

iii. Pending I.As if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

M/S. Fine Homes, v. Mrs. Sayeeda Farhath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Fine Homes, v. Mrs. Sayeeda Farhath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parkway Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrg Realtors LLP

Parkway Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrg Realtors LLP

Parkway Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrg Realtors LLP

Sri Arvind Vishnu Acharya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M B Venugopal Vs Smt M B Rathnamma

Sri K Ravishankar Vs Sri B K Narayanamurthy