Dismissed¶39

Sri. C. R. Mahadeva v. C. N. Srinivasa

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026WP/39245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court Commissioner appointment before evidence; Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC; Article 227 writ (GM-CPC) dismissed; WP No.39245 of 2025; O.S. No.1022/2023, I.A. No.III, Annexure-E dated 03.12.2025, II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Channarayapatna; suit for declaration and permanent injunction; ILR 2023 Karnataka 3983 (Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi) relied on; Karnataka HC; 07.04.2026; H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed and the Trial Court's order dated 03.12.2025 allowing appointment of the Court Commissioner stands. ¶39

Sri. C. R. Mahadeva Vs C. N. Srinivasa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:18817 WP No. 39245 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 39245 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. C.R. MAHADEVA, S/O. LATE RAMANNA @ ANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BESIDE JANATHA HOUSE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK.

¶9

SRI. BOREGOWDA, S/O. LATE BORALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. NANJUNDEGOWDA @ KAMRAJANNA, S/O. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. B.N. PRABHAKAR, S/O. K. NANJUNDEGOWDA @ KAMRAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. MURTHY, S/O. K. NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶14

PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT BINDENHALLI VILLAGE,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18817 WP No. 39245 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

ADAGURU POST, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK.

¶18

&PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

C. N. SRINIVASA, S/O. LATE C.M. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. LAKSHMI NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, RENUKAMBA ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK -573 116.

¶22

SRI. YOGISH N. GOWDA, S/O. NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, KORENAHALLI, SHARAVANABELOGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK -573116.

¶23

&RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MADHU M.T., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA IN OS NO. 1022/2023 AND QUASH THE ANNX-E DATED 03.12.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA IN IA NO. III IN OS NO. 1022/2023 AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:18817 WP No. 39245 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

In this writ petition, the petitioner called in question order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the II Add. Civil Judge and JMFC at Channarayapatna on I.A. No.III in OS.No.1022/2023 whereby the said application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of the Court Commissioner came to be allowed.

¶33

Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. On service of summons, petitioners/defendants appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. The plaintiff has filed the said application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to appoint a Court Commissioner even before the parties began adducing their respective evidence. The application came to be allowed by the impugned order. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, even before the evidence is completed, the application has been filed for appointment of a Court Commissioner and that the same unsustainable in law.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:18817 WP No. 39245 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

3. This Court in the case of Sri. Shadaksharappa Vs.

¶38

Kumari Vijayalaxmi and Others reported in ILR 2023 Karnataka 3983 had held that a Court Commissioner can be appointed at any stage even before the parties began with adducing the evidence, if the Court feels that the Commissioner report will assist the Court for proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶40

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri. C. R. Mahadeva v. C. N. Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C. R. Mahadeva v. C. N. Srinivasa

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

Sri S R Sanjivamurthy, Vs Smt. S N Shree Mala

Smt. K R Manjula, Vs Smt. Sujatha B P

M P Ramesh Vs M Vasantha

Sri. D. P. Agarwal Vs Smt. Chikkamuniyamma

Srinivasa Vs T.M. Geetha

Shalimar Incense Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Nitin Kanji Shah HUF