- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27022 WP No. 18224 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 18224 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M.LAKSHMANA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. LALITHA W/O LATE LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. KUM. USHA D/O LATE LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 3. MASTER KIRAN S/O LATE LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 144.1 4TH CROSS, BILEKAHALLI BANNERAGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUTAMMA @ MUTHULAKSHMI W/O LATE PONUSWAMY Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27022 WP No. 18224 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. SRI ANANDA S/O LATE PONUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 37 6TH CROSS, BILEKAHALLI BANNERAGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.730/2015 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF NO.1(A) ON IA NO.17/2025 UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 02.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.730/2015, by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby, rejecting an application - IA No.17 filed seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27022 WP No. 18224 of 2025 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs, institute a suit for injunction against the respondents – defendants. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. Before the concerned Court, after the conclusion of the evidence, the petitioners come up with the application – I.A.No.17 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that it is only a ruse to drag the proceedings. The order of the concerned Court reads as follows: “8. POINT NO.1: On perusal of the accompanying affidavit, objections and entire materials on record, the plaintiff No.1(a) has contended that, to clarify that whether site No.77 i.e. suit schedule property is different from site No.37 and to find the location, site No.77 and 37, it is just and necessary to appoint Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP, Bommanahalli Division, Bengaluru as Court commissioner. The defendants have contended that the P.W.1 has admitted in cross examination that defendants are in peaceful and enjoyment of suit schedule property. 9. Late plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction. The Court commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. The purpose of a Court commissioner is to clarify any disputed matter in a suit, not to help a party collect evidence. A commissioner cannot be appointed to investigate the factual possession of a property. A Court commissioner can be appointed if there is a valid reason to clarify a disputed matter in a suit. Looking to nature of this suit, facts and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27022 WP No. 18224 of 2025 circumstances of this suit, the appointment of Court commissioner is not necessary. This matter is oldest matter. Hence, the plaintiff No.1(a) has not made out grounds to allow I.A.No.17. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court holds that a Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence in a suit for injunction. It is for the petitioners to prove possession and not take the assistance of the Court Commissioner to fetch evidence. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court is in tune with law and finding no perversity in the order, this Court would not entertain the petition in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obliterate the same. 3. With the above observations, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3 CT:SS