- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18817 WP No. 39245 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 39245 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C.R. MAHADEVA, S/O. LATE RAMANNA @ ANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BESIDE JANATHA HOUSE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK. 2. SRI. BOREGOWDA, S/O. LATE BORALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 3. SRI. NANJUNDEGOWDA @ KAMRAJANNA, S/O. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 4. SRI. B.N. PRABHAKAR, S/O. K. NANJUNDEGOWDA @ KAMRAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5. SRI. MURTHY, S/O. K. NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT BINDENHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18817 WP No. 39245 of 2025 ADAGURU POST, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C. N. SRINIVASA, S/O. LATE C.M. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. LAKSHMI NILAYA, 1ST CROSS ROAD, RENUKAMBA ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK -573 116. 2. SRI. YOGISH N. GOWDA, S/O. NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, KORENAHALLI, SHARAVANABELOGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK -573116. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHU M.T., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA IN OS NO. 1022/2023 AND QUASH THE ANNX-E DATED 03.12.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA IN IA NO. III IN OS NO. 1022/2023 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18817 WP No. 39245 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner called in question order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the II Add. Civil Judge and JMFC at Channarayapatna on I.A. No.III in OS.No.1022/2023 whereby the said application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of the Court Commissioner came to be allowed. 2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. On service of summons, petitioners/defendants appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. The plaintiff has filed the said application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to appoint a Court Commissioner even before the parties began adducing their respective evidence. The application came to be allowed by the impugned order. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, even before the evidence is completed, the application has been filed for appointment of a Court Commissioner and that the same unsustainable in law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18817 WP No. 39245 of 2025 3. This Court in the case of Sri. Shadaksharappa Vs. Kumari Vijayalaxmi and Others reported in ILR 2023 Karnataka 3983 had held that a Court Commissioner can be appointed at any stage even before the parties began with adducing the evidence, if the Court feels that the Commissioner report will assist the Court for proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12