- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3776 WP No. 34951 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34951 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K S BHAGYAMMA, W/O BASAVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O KEREYAGALAHALLI VILLAGE, NAYAKANAHATTI HOBALI, CHALLAKERE TALUK AND CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: K T MANJUNATHA REDDY, S/O LATE D THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O JANATHA COLONY, MADAKARIPURA, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITRADURGA IN O.S 287/2017 ON IA NO. VIII DATED 30.09.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3776 WP No. 34951 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, in O.S.No. 287/2017 whereby I.A.VIII filed by the defendant for appointment of Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. After service of summons, the defendant has filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues have been framed and the matter has been posted for evidence. At that stage, defendant has filed I.A. VIII under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking appointment of Court Commissioner. In the application, the defendant has sought for measurement of the suit schedule property as well as other properties adjacent to the suit schedule property. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3776 WP No. 34951 of 2024 3. If the Court Commissioner is appointed to measure all the properties situated adjacent to the suit schedule property, this would go beyond the purpose and nature of the suit and the same is not required for final adjudication of the suit. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. However, it is made clear that if the defendant – petitioner files a fresh application for appointment of Court Commissioner only in respect of the properties in dispute in the suit, the trial Court is directed to consider the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE VP