Dismissed¶42

H T Karunakar Hegde v. Smt K Aparna

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/6932/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition; Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC; appointment of Court Commissioner; local investigation; suit for permanent injunction; burden of proving lawful possession and disturbance; affidavit failing to state necessity of Commissioner; trial court order upheld; O.S.No.7226/2018; XXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru; Site No.66 Abbigere Yeshwanthapura Hobli; Karnataka High Court; GM-CPC; writ petition rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In a suit for bare/permanent injunction, the burden is on the petitioner-plaintiff to prove that he is in lawful possession and that there is a disturbance of his possession by the defendants, by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. ¶39

H T Karunakar Hegde Vs Smt K Aparna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.7226/2018 by the trial Court rejecting the petitioner's application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC should be quashed and the application allowed. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

There is no reason or good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court; the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

¶39

Key takeaways

The affidavit accompanying the application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC did not state why the appointment of a Court Commissioner was necessary; hence the application lacked justification.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.) — W.P. No.6932/2022 (GM-CPC), decided 10.06.2026: Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 08.02.2022 of the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.7226/2018, whereby the plaintiff's application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local investigation of the suit site (Site No.66, Abbigere Panchayat, Medarahalli @ Myadarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, 40 x 30 feet) in a suit for permanent injunction was rejected. Held: in a bare injunction suit the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove lawful possession and its disturbance by the defendants through oral and documentary evidence; the affidavit accompanying the Commissioner application did not state why such appointment was necessary; therefore no reason or good ground existed to interfere with the trial Court's order. Writ petition found devoid of merits and rejected (dismissed).

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6932/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H.T. KARUNAKAR HEGDE S/O THAMMANNAHEGDE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.75/B MUTHYALANAGARA BANDAPPA GARDEN BENGALURU-560054.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M. ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. K. APARNA DIRECTOR KOLA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., W/O SRI. K.V. NAIDU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 4TH CROSS FIRST MAIN, RMV 2ND STAGE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALURU-560094.

¶13

SRI. G. MURALIKRISHNA S/O SRI. NAIDU VELLORE CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 4TH MAIN ROAD 'HANUMAGIRI NAGAR SHANI TEMPLE BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560061.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SRI. B. DEVARAJALU NAIDU S/O B. GOVINDARAJU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.5, 2ND CROSS BASAVESHWARA COLONY THINDLU MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560097.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MADAN N, ADV., FOR SRI. NANJA REDDY P.N. ADV., FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-35), PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.02.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7226/2018/ VIDE ANNEXUREA. CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10-A OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-G & ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.7226/2018 by the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for

¶28

short, ‘the trial Court’ ).

¶29

Heard Sri.Muralidhar H.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Madan N., learned counsel for Sri.Nanja Reddy P.N., learned counsel for the respondents.

¶30

The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.7226/2018 against the respondents herein seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any person/s claiming under them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is the property bearing Site No.66, assessment and Khata No.10 of Abbigere Panchayat, Medarahalli @ Myadarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 30 feet. The defendants have filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments contending that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and further contented that the defendants have obtained the conversion order from the Deputy Commissioner on 27.04.2015 and thereafter, defendant No.2 has purchased the Site No.56 formed in Sy.No.11 measuring 40 x 30 feet vide registered sale dated 23.06.2017 and thereafter, khatha has been transferred in favour of defendant No.2 and taxes were paid to the Corporation regularly and the BBMP has accorded sanction to put up the construction and the defendant No.2 has put up the construction in the site belonged to him.

¶35

The parties have adduced the evidence and thereafter the petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC seeking to appoint a Court Commissioner to conduct local investigation of site No.66, assessment and Khata No.10 of Abbigere

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Panchayat, Medarahalli @ Myadarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 30 feet and submit the report. The perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application indicates that the plaintiff has not stated as to why the appointment of Court Commissioner is necessary. It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the petitionerplaintiff is for permanent injunction and the plaintiff in the said suit is required to prove his lawful possession and disturbance of his possession by the defendants.

¶39

The perusal of the para No.12 of the plaint averments, the plaintiff himself has admitted that the defendants have started construction in the suit schedule property. Be that as it may, the suit being one for bare injunction, the burden is on the petitioner-plaintiff to prove that he is in lawful possession and there is a disturbance for his possession by the defendants by adducing the oral as well as documentary evidence.

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27989 W.P. No.6932/2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The trial Court, considering the nature of relief sought in the suit and considering the rival submissions, rejected the application. I do not find any reason or good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference in the petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly

¶43

rejected .

¶44

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶45

BSR

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

H T Karunakar Hegde v. Smt K Aparna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H T Karunakar Hegde v. Smt K Aparna

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

Sri M N Dharmavratha Vs Sri K L Ramesh

Mr Jagadeesh Vs Mr Lingappa Suvarna

Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. Vs United Breweries Ltd.

Sri. Angadi Chikka Anjinappa @ Chikka Anajinappa Vs Smt. Ammayya @ Anitha

Smt. v. Meenakumari Vs Sri v Prakash

Smt Usha Ramesh Vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.