- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50498 WP No. 12897 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 12897 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE GIRIYAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS GUDDEBEERANAHALLI GRAMA LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. REP BY GPA HOLDER SMT. LALITHA W/O SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NATARAJ DONKENNAVAR, ADV., FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. HEMAVATI W/O G BALACHANDRA D/O LATE SUBEEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS GUDDEBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. 2. SOMA S/O MANCHHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50498 WP No. 12897 of 2021 RANGENAHALLI GRAMA LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. 3. SMT. JAYANTHI W/O GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS GUDDEBEERANAHALLI GRAMA LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DTD:17.08.2021, NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 IS D/W V/O DTD:22.10.2021, NOTICE TO R-1 IS H/S & IS PLACED EX-PARTE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.17.3.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL JMFC AT TARIKERE IN O.S.NO.333/2016 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER O-26 R-9 OF CPC VIDE ANENXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.333 of 2016 pending before the Court of Civil Judge & Addl. JMFC, Tarikere, is before this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 17.03.2021 passed on interlocutory application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 R/w Section 151 of CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50498 WP No. 12897 of 2021 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.333 of 2016 is filed by respondent No.1 herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is an agricultural property measuring 2 acres. The contesting defendants have filed their written statement to the said suit and opposed the suit claim. After the evidence of both the parties was closed before the trial Court, application under Order XXVI Rule 9 R/w Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the defendants to appoint a surveyor attached to the office of Tahsildar, Tarikere as Court Commissioner for the purpose of local inspection of the suit schedule properties, survey the same and to submit a report. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant no.1 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has erred in rejecting application on the ground that it amounts to collect evidence. The identity of the suit schedule property and the property of defendant No.1 which is adjacent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50498 WP No. 12897 of 2021 to the suit schedule property is not in dispute. Therefore, for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit, the trial Court ought to have allowed application filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Perusal of the material produced along with this petition would go to show that petitioner herein is the step mother of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit are son-in-law and daughter-in-law of defendant No.1, who is the petitioner herein. In the plaint it is averred that, defendants are residing in a house which is situated in a site measuring 18x26 feet towards the southern side of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is an agricultural property measuring 2 acres and the boundaries of the said property is also specified in the schedule given to the plaint. It is for the plaintiff to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. There is no allegation of encroachment of the suit schedule property by the defendants and on the other hand, allegation is about interference with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Even according to the written statement which is filed in O.S.No.333 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50498 WP No. 12897 of 2021 of 2016 by the contesting defendants, they are residing in a house which exists in site measuring 18x26 feet. Therefore, the property of the plaintiff and defendants can be clearly identified. Appointment of the Court Commissioner can be made in a suit principally where there is allegation of encroachment, if there is difficulty with regard to identity of the properties or when the trial Court finds that the oral and documentary evidence placed on the record would not be sufficient to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 6. The reading of Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC itself makes it very clear that appointment of a Court Commissioner is at the discretion of the Court. In the present case, the trial Court having appreciated that the oral and documentary evidence placed on record would be sufficient to properly and effectively adjudicate the dispute between parties has dismissed the application and in my considered opinion the said order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which needs interference by this Court. Therefore, I decline to entertain the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50498 WP No. 12897 of 2021 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48