- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010612242026 NC: 2026:KHC:51988 WP No. 27884 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27884 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE B.R. SHIVARAM, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR- SHRI.B.S SOMASHEKARA, S/O LATE B.R. SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO. 471, 3RD CROSS, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, SREENAGAR, BENGALURU-560050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI V. B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.VIMALA D/O LATE SUBBA RAO, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS SHRI. K.S. JAGANNATH, S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/A OLD NO. 182-B, SRIKANTHA KRUPA 13TH CROSS, H.S.R. SECTOR-I, BENGALURU-560102 Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010612242026 NC: 2026:KHC:51988 WP No. 27884 of 2026 2. SHRI. K.S. SURESH, S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A OLD NO. 2720, 1ST FLOOR, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 3. SHRI. K.S. SADASHIVA PRASAD, S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NO. 220/A, 7TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BYRASANDRA, BENGALURU-560011. 4. SMT. LATHA KUMAR, W/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A NO. 24/D, PAWANA 70TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 5. SMT. DEEPTHI D/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO. 24/D, PAWANA 70TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.V. BADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO.12 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.S. NO.302/2013 BY THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-28), WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010612242026 NC: 2026:KHC:51988 WP No. 27884 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.V. Badrinath, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 28.08.2026 passed on I.A. No.12 filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a local inspection of the property. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit is one for specific performance and that the decree to be passed by the Court would be to the extent of the agreement in question. It is further submitted that, for the purpose of adjudicating the suit, appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property is not warranted. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010612242026 NC: 2026:KHC:51988 WP No. 27884 of 2026 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the earlier suit was decreed ex parte and that, while executing the said ex parte decree, the petitioner has taken possession of the property in excess of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of property in excess of the suit schedule property and, for that purpose, an appropriate application has been filed before the Court, which is pending consideration. 5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ petition papers. 6. The suit is for specific performance. The agreement relates to the property bearing Site No.253/22, situated at 4th Cross, 1st Block, Jayanagar, near Ashoka Pillar, Bengaluru, measuring 36 feet × 45 feet, i.e., 1,620 square feet, plus a corridor area measuring 54 feet × 7 feet, making the total site area 1,998 square feet. The total built-up area is 703 square feet × 6 portions, i.e., flats, totally measuring approximately 42.18 squares, consisting of a passage leading to the ground floor, first floor and second floor. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010612242026 NC: 2026:KHC:51988 WP No. 27884 of 2026 7. It is the case of the respondent that the plaintiff is in possession of the ground floor, which is not the subject matter of the suit for specific performance. The Trial Court, considering that the prayer made in the suit is for execution of a registered sale deed and delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, and in view of the rival claims regarding the extent of possession, directed identification of the property. The Trial Court has held that, in order to answer Issue No.5, which relates to possession of the property, identification of the property is crucial. It has also held that, if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit and possession is to be handed over, proper identification and description of the suit schedule property are necessary. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial Court is in the context of answering Issue No.5 relating to possession of the property. It is also stated that the Court Commissioner has inspected the property, submitted the report, and the suit has been set down for final arguments. 8. Considering that the Trial Court has found it necessary to identify the property for the purpose of answering Issue No.5 and also for deciding the plaintiff’s entitlement to - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010612242026 NC: 2026:KHC:51988 WP No. 27884 of 2026 the relief of possession of the property, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32