- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1400 WP No. 107468 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107468 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDARAMESHWAR SHIVACHARYA MAHASWAMY HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. PEETHADIPATHI SRI SIDDARAMESHWAR MAHASWAMY HIREMATH, R/O. YELBURGA, KOPPAL DIST-583236, REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER, SRI. PRASANNA RENUKA, S/O. SIDDARAMASWAMY HIREMATH, OCC. ADV. AND AGRICULTURE, AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O. YELBURGA, KOPPAL DIST-583236. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHANTALINGESHWAR SWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. PEETHADIPATHI, SRI SHANTALINGESHWAR SWAMY NAGARAGADDIMATH, R/O. HOSABANDIHARALAPUR, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 2. SMT. SARVAMANGALA W/O. SHARANAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HALAGERI, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583236. 3. SMT. SUDHA W/O. ISHWARAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DASANAL, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1400 WP No. 107468 of 2024 4. KUMARI BHARATHI W/O. BASAYYA GADAGIN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YELBURGA, KOPPAL DIST-583236. 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER PATTAN PANCHAYAT YELBURGA, KOPPAL DIST-583236. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS-DISPENSED WITH) 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 FOR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YELBURGA ON I.A. NO.27 IN O.S. NO.152/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. Petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga on I.A.No.27 in O.S.No.152/2011 vide Annexure-K by allowing this writ petition in the ends of justice and equity. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1400 WP No. 107468 of 2024 3. The respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.no.152 of 2011 seeking for declaration that the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the suit property and restrain the defendant No.1 or anyone else claiming through him from interfering with the possession of the property. Pleadings having been completed, evidence of the plaintiff being led, when the matter was posted for the evidence of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the property and submit a report as regards the status of the property. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, came to be rejected vide order dated 22.11.2022. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The submission of Sri S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the status of the property and the nature of the property are required - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1400 WP No. 107468 of 2024 to be ascertained in order to properly and effectively decide the suit and as such, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed for appointment of Commissioner by the petitioner. 5. Having perused the plaint and the application filed by the petitioner so also the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the suit being one for declaration of title. The said title being disputed by the petitioner and defendant No.1, the existence of tombs thereon or the nature of the property is irrelevant or immaterial for the purpose of deciding the title of the property. The second relief, which has been sought for being a permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with the possession of the property. For that purpose also, the existence of tombs or otherwise would not be relevant. I am of the considered opinion that the application has been filed at the stage after completion of defendants’ evidence is only to protract - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1400 WP No. 107468 of 2024 the proceedings. I do not find any merit in the above petition. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38