- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10384 W.P. No.29893/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.29893/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.P. KALACHAR S/O PUTTACHAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. BEGUR VILLAGE AJAMPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI D.G. ADV., FOR SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. PUTTAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT. BEGUR VILLAGE AJAMPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577201. 2. THE SECRETARY R/AT. BEGUR VILLAGE AJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH N.D. ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10384 W.P. No.29893/2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER/S PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, JR.DN., AND JMFC TARIKERE IN O.S.NO.189/2011 ON I.A.NO.14 FILED U/O 26 RULE 9 OF CPC DTD.13.06.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNX-J AS THE SAME IS IMPUGNED, PERVERSE, CAPRICIOUS AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.189/2011 pending consideration on the file the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2019 by which the trial Court has rejected the second application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC (IA.No.14) seeking appointment of a Commissioner. 2. It appears on earlier occasion the petitioner had filed similar application which was allowed, a Commissioner was appointed, who had filed his report as per Ex.C1. Objections were not filed by the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10384 W.P. No.29893/2019 petitioner/plaintiff. However, defendant had filed his statement of objections. 3. The said Commissioner was examined. The petitioner/plaintiff herein did not cross-examine the said witness. The Commissioner was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant. In the cross- examination by the learned counsel for the defendant, certain answers have been elicited from the Commissioner with regard to the place at which the report Ex.C1 was prepared. In that, the Commissioner is stated to have answered that Ex.C1 had been prepared in the office of PDO. Based on this answer given by the Commissioner during the cross-examination conducted by the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the second application seeking appointment of second Commissioner. 4. The trial Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Parappa and Others v. Bhimappa and Another1 rejected the application 1 ILR 2008 KAR 1840 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10384 W.P. No.29893/2019 inasmuch as the plaintiff neither filed objections to the Commissioner's report nor did he cross-examine the Commissioner. Inasmuch as, this Court in the aforesaid judgement of Parappa has categorically held that if either of the parties not satisfied with the report of the Commissioner, he shall file his statement of objections in writing and shall cross-examine the witness. Neither of this is complied by the plaintiff. 5. Merely because the earlier Commissioner in the cross-examination conducted by the defendant had given certain answer contrary to the case of the plaintiff cannot be a ground for filing another application for the second time seeking appointment of another Commissioner. 6. The order passed in the trial Court does not suffer from any irregular illegality, the same is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE ABK/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9