- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10184 WP No. 105634 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.105634 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MALLANAGOUDA S/O. LATE BHEEMANAGOUDA MALI PATIL, AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ZUNZALKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADIQALI N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. INDUMATHI W/O. AMEETHKUMAR D/O. PURSHOTAM GAJENDRAGAD, AGE: 39 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHALGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2. RUDRAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ILKAL, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SHAKUNTHALA W/O. SHIVARAJ RAO SONE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHALGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 4. KUSHAL S/O. MURLIDHAR GHORPADE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHALGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.14 11:05:02 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10184 WP No. 105634 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30-07-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 23 IN OS NO. 188/2015 SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUSHTAGI VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: ] i. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30-07-2025 passed on I.A. No. 23 in O.S No. 188/2015 Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC Kushtagi vide Annexure-E. ii. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. What is challenged in this petition is the order dated 30.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.23 in O.S.No.188/2015, rejecting the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application had been filed seeking appointment of the Commissioner to determine who was in possession of the suit property. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the said application by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10184 WP No. 105634 of 2025 holding that the Commissioner cannot be appointed to decide the possession of the property by way of local inspection, and that the same would amount to collection of evidence. In a suit filed by the plaintiff claiming to be in possession, it is for the plaintiff to prove possession. There being no infirmity in the said order, the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25