- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15646 WP No. 7914 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7914 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SUBBAIAH S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A MOLEDODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 3 562160 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH N V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A MOLEDODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 3 562160. 2. HITESH M K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 01 YEARS MINOR REP. BY 1ST RESPONDENT R/A MOLEDODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160 &RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2025 PASSED IN OS NO. 290/2019 (IA NO. 8 UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 OF CPC) VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AND JMFC CHANNAPATNA CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC. Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15646 WP No. 7914 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner3plaintiff has called in question the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as the 8Trial Court9 for short) on I.A.No.VIII filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.290/2019, vide Annexure-A, whereby the said application seeking to appoint a Revenue Officer as Court Commissioner to determine possession over the suit schedule property and submit a report has been rejected. 2. The petitioner3plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.290/2019. After service of summons, the defendants appeared through counsel and filed their written statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, and the matter was posted for evidence of the parties. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.VIII under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15646 WP No. 7914 of 2026 of CPC, seeking appointment of a Revenue Officer as Court Commissioner to determine possession over the suit schedule property and submit a report. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 20.11.2025, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Insofar as an injunction is concerned, the only question to be determined is who was in possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. This factor has to be decided based on the evidence adduced by the parties to the suit. Such a question cannot be delegated to a Court Commissioner to ascertain who is in possession of the property. It is for the parties to adduce evidence and prove the possession. 4. In view of the above, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A.No.VIII. Therefore, this Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15646 WP No. 7914 of 2026 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.VIII in O.S.No.290/2019, vide Annexure-A. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43