- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1487 CRP No. 48 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 48 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI B V KRISHNAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SMT SHARADAMMA, W/O LATE SRI B V KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SMT GEETHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI B V KRISHNAPPA 3. SRI HARISH B K AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI B V KRISHNAPPA PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE R/A BALIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563139. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P A KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1487 CRP No. 48 of 2024 S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, R/A BALIGANAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563139. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH M.N., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 IN OS.NO.211/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This Civil Revision petition is filed at the hands of the defendants in O.S.No.211/2016 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur, being aggrieved of the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.10 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1487 CRP No. 48 of 2024 3. Learned Counsel for the defendants submits that the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to pass an order of mandatory injunction and deliver possession in favour of the plaintiff and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. After the examination of the witnesses were completed and the cross examination were also completed, the application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner was filed by the plaintiff. Learned Counsel submits that in the Affidavit filed along with the application the plaintiff has stated that 15 days prior to filing of the suit the defendants have forcefully dispossessed the plaintiff and have put up an RCC construction and compound wall and therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the Court Commissioner is required to be appointed to ascertain these facts. However, learned Counsel points out to the prayer in the application and submits that the prayer in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1487 CRP No. 48 of 2024 the application filed at the hands of the plaintiff is for appointment of a Taluka Surveyor as Court Commissioner for the purpose of measuring the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has not noticed this aspect of the matter and has allowed the application appointing the Taluka Surveyor of Malur as Court Commissioner without any further direction as to what exactly the Court Commissioner is required to do. 4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, however submits that the contention of the plaintiff as stated in the Affidavit accompanying the application has been considered by the Trial Court and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the defendants and the learned counsel for plaintiff and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the defendants. The Trial Court although has noticed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1487 CRP No. 48 of 2024 the averments made in the Affidavit filed along with the application that an RCC construction has been put up just prior to the filing of the suit by the defendants, nevertheless, whether the said contention raised by the plaintiff is to be ascertained by appointment of a Court Commissioner, is however not found in the impugned order. The Trial Court has proceeded to allow the application while appointing the Taluka Surveyor of Malur as Court Commissioner without any specific direction as to what exactly the Court Commissioner was required to do. 6. In that view of the matter, since this Court finds that the contention of the plaintiff in the Affidavit filed along with the application does not support the prayer made in the application and the said aspect of the matter has not been noticed by the Trial Court, further, whether at the stage when the recording of the evidence of the parties have been completed, the Trial Court could have entertained such an application has not been considered - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1487 CRP No. 48 of 2024 by the Trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application could not have been allowed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2024 in O.S.No.211/2016 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur. Consequently, this Court proceeds to reject rejected I.A.No.10 filed by the plaintiff. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL