- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23086 WP No. 17921 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17921 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: ABDUL GAFFER S/O ABDUL SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF H.M.T. ENTERPRISES, AT NO. 152, ARCOT SRINIVASACHAR STREET, WARD NO. 29, COTTONPET, BANGALORE - 560 053. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. SANTHOSH, S/O N. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 232, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 079. 2. MANIARASU M PE, S/O LATE T.R. MUTTUSELVAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1147/D, 1-2, 18TH B MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.G. SATEESHA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23086 WP No. 17921 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2.06.2025 REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/O 26 RULE 9 OF CPC IN OS NO. 8743/2013 PASSED BY THE XXIV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BANGALORE VIDE ANX- E AS ILLEGAL AND THERE BY ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Narendra Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.G. Sateesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 02.06.2025, by which, the concerned Court rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure and identify the property in O.S.No.8743/2013. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23086 WP No. 17921 of 2025 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit is for injunction against the respondent-defendants. It is of the year 2013. At the fag end of the trial, the petitioner-plaintiff files an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure or identify the property that he himself is in possession of. The concerned Court, has by cogent reasons, rejected the application on the score that the suit is for injunction and it is for plaintiff to prove that he is in possession of the property and not by appointing the Court Commissioner to fetch evidence for the plaintiff. 4. In the light of the reasons obtaining in the impugned order being cogent, I do not find any warrant to interfere in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE rv List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK