Disposed¶39

Sri D Harsha v. Smt Muthu Bai

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026WP/25582/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition; GM-CPC; Court Commissioner appointment refused; Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC; Section 151 CPC; survey/local investigation of suit schedule property; permanent injunction suit O.S. No.8841/2017; Sy.No.8/16 Gidadakonenahalli Village Yeshwanthapura Bangalore North Taluk; Sy. No.8/14 outside suit schedule; no counter-claim; liberty to file separate suit; no error or illegality in interlocutory order; Karnataka HC; NC: 2026:KHC:13950; WP No. 25582 of 2025; H.T. Narendra Prasad J.; decided 06-03-2026; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no error or illegality in the Trial Court's order rejecting I.A. No.9 seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a survey of the suit schedule property; accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. ¶37-38

Sri D Harsha Vs Smt Muthu Bai — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13950 WP No. 25582 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25582 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI D HARSHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. DASE GOWDA NOW RESIDING AT NO.9 YADUGIRI NILAYA, HANIYAMBADI OPP. KALIKAMBA CERAMICS KAVERI NAGAR, MANDYA-571401.

¶10

SRI. MAHADEV

¶11

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O. CHENNEGOWDA NOW R/AT NO.6/A KANAIKANA HALLI BENTENAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI HASAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. HEGDE S RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT MUTHU BAI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O. LATE SATHYANARAYANA RAO

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13950 WP No. 25582 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

R/O 85, 9^TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD DATHATREYA TEMPLE STREET MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.

¶20

SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNAPPA R/O GIDADAKONENAHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560022.

¶21

SRI ANIL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ROYAL BOREWEL AND PROPERTIES NO. 2323, 'A', D GROUP LAYOUT R/GIDADAKONENAHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560022.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. G MANIVANNAN., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1: SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 17.10.2025)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/06/2025, ON IA NO.9 UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN OS NO. 8841/2017 AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13950 WP No. 25582 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A. No.9 in O.S. No.8841/2017, whereby the application filed by defendant No.1 seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a survey of the suit schedule property was rejected.

¶31

The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.8841/2017 for permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.8/16 of Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore North Taluk. The Trial Court has observed that appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a survey would arise only when there is a dispute with regard to identification of the property. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the documents produced by the plaintiff are sufficient to identify the suit schedule property.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:13950 WP No. 25582 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Though it is contended that the property bearing

¶36

Sy. No.8/14 is involved, the same is not included in the suit schedule property. Further, the defendants have also not filed any counter-claim. If the defendants intend to identify or assert their rights over their property, they are at liberty to file a separate suit. On these grounds, the Trial Court has rejected the application.

¶37