Sri H J Chandru Vs Smt K N Lakshmi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri H J Chandru Vs Smt K N Lakshmi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; writ petition disposed of as its prayer did not survive for consideration following the submission that the impugned order has already been complied with.

Issue for consideration

Sustainability of the Trial Court's order dated 03.05.2025 allowing the Decree Holder's application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC (direction to a court commissioner to break open the lock of an Almirah while videographing the commissioner work), as called in question by the Judgment Debtor under Article 227. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Decree Holder submitted that the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 has already been complied with, the prayer sought in the writ petition does not survive for consideration; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The Court decided no issue on the merits of the commissioner's appointment under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.) — Writ Petition No. 5699 of 2026 (GM-CPC), decided 16.03.2026. The petitioner-Judgment Debtor invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 03.05.2025 of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya in Ex.No.107/2023, whereby the respondent-Decree Holder's I.A. No. VII under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC was allowed and a court commissioner was directed to capture the entire commissioner work on video from beginning to end while breaking open the lock of an Almirah, with the commissioner fee tentatively fixed at Rs.2,000/- and report awaited by 13.06.2025. Learned counsel for the respondent-Decree Holder submitted that the impugned order has already been complied with; holding that the prayer therefore did not survive for consideration, the Court disposed of the writ petition. No finding was made on the legality of appointing a commissioner in execution or on breaking open the lock; no case law was cited and no precedent laid down.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:15281 WP No. 5699 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5699 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. H. J. CHANDRU S/O JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT. 3RD CROSS VIMALA CONVENT ROAD SAHUKARA CHANNAIAH BADAVANE GUTHAL, MANDYA -571 403 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SRI. H. J. CHANDRU S/O. JAYARAMU, 6TH CROSS DR. SINGH LINE SAHUKARA CHANNAIAH BADAVANE GUTHAL, MANDYA -571 403.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B. VIJAY SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND: DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH SMT. K. N. LAKSHMI COURTOF KARNATAKA W/O K. P. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OLD R/AT. NO. 14202/2, 4TH CROSS BEHIND JAYALAKSHMI SAW MILL GUTHALU COLONY, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA CITY. REPRESENTED BY HER DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. K. P. CHANDRASHEKARA.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. DEEKSHITH C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR R. S., ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15281 WP No. 5699 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA IN EXECUTION NO.107/2023 DATED 03.05.2025 IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER/RESPONDENT HEREIN IN I.A. NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AS MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner-Judgment Debtor has called in question the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short) in Ex.No.107/2023 on I.A.No.VII filed by the respondentDecree Holder under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-A, whereby, the said application filed by the Decree Holder has been allowed.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15281 WP No. 5699 of 2026

HC-KAR

The operative portion of the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 is reads as follows:

“ ORDER

The I.A.No.VII filed by the Decree Holder under order 26 rule 9 R/W/Sec.151 of C.P.C is hereby allowed.

The court commissioner is hereby directed to capture the entire proceedings through Video graphy through Camara from beginning to end, at the time of doing the commissioner work by breaking open the lock of the Almirah and also submits the same accordance with law.

The court commissioner fee is tentatively fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

The court commissioner shall submit his report to the court by next date of hearing.

Issue commissioner warrant:

Await report by 13.06.2025.”

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Decree Holder has submitted that the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 has already been complied with.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15281 WP No. 5699 of 2026

HC-KAR

In view of the above, the prayer sought in this writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12