- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29318 W.P. No.15907/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.15907/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAROJA W/O LATE S.P. DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2. CHANDRIKA D/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 3. BINDU D/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 4. PAVAN KUMAR S.D. S/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. SALAGAME VILLAGE AND HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573219. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. SEETHARAMU S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29318 W.P. No.15907/2022 2. SHRINIVAS S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT. SALAGAME VILLAGE AND HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573219. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. RAVINDRA, ADV., [ABSENT]) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 29.07.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.450/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.XVIII FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.450/2011 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Hassan (for short, ‘the trial Court’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29318 W.P. No.15907/2022 2. Heard Sri K.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 3. Petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.450/2011 seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also sought direction to defendants to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property by removing the structure put up by them in the suit schedule property and further relief of temporary injunction. In the said suit, the defendants have filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiffs have filed an application seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner. The trial Court appointed the Court Commissioner, who has submitted the report. The said Court Commissioner's report was opposed by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The plaintiffs have partly cross- examined the Court Commissioner and based on such evidence, the trial Court rejected the Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29318 W.P. No.15907/2022 Commissioner's report. It is to be noticed that trial Court, on an earlier occasion, while rejecting the Court Commissioner's report, has held that the appointment of Court Commissioner and his report is premature as the parties are required to adduce evidence. The records indicate that after completion of the trial, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC seeking for appointment of ADLR as Court Commissioner to carry out the local inspection to find out as to whether the defendants have encroached the suit schedule property and put up the construction. The said application was rejected by trial Court mainly on the ground that earlier the application for appointment of Court Commissioner was allowed, the report was filed and now it cannot be allowed. 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioners-plaintiffs are making specific assertion in the plaint as well as in the application seeking for appointment of Court Commissioner that the plaintiff is the owner of the site - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29318 W.P. No.15907/2022 bearing No.3 carved out of Sy.No.191 of Salagame Village, Salagame Hobli, Hassan Taluk, measuring 40 x 30 bearing Gram Panchayath Khata No.267, encroached by the defendants. It is specifically contented by the petitioners-plaintiffs that the defendants are incorrectly claiming the suit schedule property and have illegally put up the construction. When such an assertion is made, in my considered view, the appointment of Court Commissioner is necessary to find out the assertion made by the plaintiffs in the application with regard to the factual aspect of the matter. 5. It is to be noticed that the trial Court, on an earlier occasion, had allowed the application and ordered for appointment of Court Commissioner and he submitted the report, which was rejected on the ground that the report is incorrect as both the parties have opposed the said report and the report was submitted prematurely and the evidence is required to be recorded. The records further indicate that now the evidence has been recorded - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29318 W.P. No.15907/2022 in the suit and at that stage, the application is filed for local inspection, in my considered view allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking local inspection at the hands of an ADLR would aid the trial Court to consider the relief sought in the plaint and further it would aid the trial Court to solve the disputed facts between the parties as the plaintiffs are making specific assertion that the defendants have encroached the suit schedule property and put up the construction and the said assertion cannot be ascertained solely on the oral and documentary evidence. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 29.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.450/2011 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Hassan is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.18 filed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29318 W.P. No.15907/2022 plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC is allowed. The trial Court shall appoint the jurisdictional ADLR as Court Commissioner. iii. The parties to the suit are permitted to file their memo of instructions. No orders as to cost. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36