- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6515 WP No. 102872 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102872 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOK S/O MALLAPPA TOPPANNAVAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.1435/A/7, SOMAWAR-GURUWAR PETH, KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 115. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD SHANKAR PAWAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BELAGAVI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BELAGAVI, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN CODE-591 239. 2. BELAGAVI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BRANCH KITTUR BY ITS MANAGER, TALUKA BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 115. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6515 WP No. 102872 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Vinod Shankar Pawar., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveen P.Tarikar., counsel for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he should be declared as that he is the absolute and exclusive owner of the property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated:06.03.1980 and restraining the defendants, his agents, servants, officials or anybody on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by issue of permanent injunction. The defendants filed a written statement. The Trial Court framed issues. The parties led evidence and the documents were marked. The suit was set down for arguments, at that juncture, the defendants moved - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6515 WP No. 102872 of 2022 an application for appointment of Commissioner. It was contested by the plaintiff. The Trial Court vide order dated:27.05.2022 allowed the application. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel Sri.Praveen P.Tarikar., in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the defendant was constrained to move an application for the appointment of Commissioner to decide the real controversy in the matter. He submits that the Trial Court in extenso referred to the material on record and rightly allowed the application. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. The application filed by the defendants is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-C. I have perused the same with utmost care. It is has been stated that the plaintiff tried to establish his right over the suit schedule property placing reliance on the boundaries that were mentioned in the sale deed. It is also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6515 WP No. 102872 of 2022 contended that the defendants purchased the property in 2006 adjoining the properties of the plaintiff and boundaries will automatically change and it cannot be said that the boundaries shown in 1980 will remain as it is. Taking note of the said contentions, the Trial Court appointed the Chief Officer, Patana Panchayat, Kittur as the Court Commissioner. While allowing the application, the Trial Court concluded that there is a wrong mentioning of the survey numbers and the extent. The said conclusion is not correct. The reason is simple. It is nobody’s case that there is a wrong mention of the survey numbers and the extent. Furthermore, there is no allegation about the identity of the property. The Trial Court has lost sight of the same and erroneously proceeded with the matter. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and he has mentioned schedule in the plaint. The plaintiff must establish his case. Moreover, seeking an appointment of Commissioner at the fag end of the case is not warranted in the present case. The Trial Court has failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded the relevant matters. The order passed by the Trial Court in appointing the Commissioner is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6515 WP No. 102872 of 2022 unwarranted. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be quashed. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal in O.S.No.20/2017 vide Annexure-E is quashed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of, and the interim order, if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39