- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10040 WP No. 22709 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22709 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MUNIREDDY S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT MADANAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K., ADVOCATE) AND: M.V. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT MADANAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 19.07.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOLAR IN O.S.NO. 395/2011 IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ON IA NO.XV FILED BY THE Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10040 WP No. 22709 of 2024 PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF COURT COMMISSIONER AND ETC. 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 This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar on IA No.XV in O.S.No.395/2011, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff for appointment of the Court Commissioner was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. After the evidence of the parties was completed, plaintiff filed this application for appointment of the Court Commissioner to measure the schedule property to find out who is in possession of the suit schedule property. 3. Since the suit is filed for declaration, it is for the parties to prove the title by adducing the evidence. By - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10040 WP No. 22709 of 2024 appointment of a Court Commissioner to determine as to who is in the possession of the property, will not be helpful to the parties to declare the title. Who is in the possession of the property entitles the legal determination that goes beyond mere physical and technical examination and involves substantial legal interpretation and application to prove the evidence. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application. There is no error in the order passed by the trial court. 4. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34