- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3259 WP No. 2130 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2130 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: P MARISWAMY S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NANJEDEVANAPURA VILLAGE HARAVE HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NANJUNDASWAMY S/O LATE GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. ASHA W/O NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE R/ AT NANJEDEVANAPURA VILLAGE, HARAVE HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3259 WP No. 2130 of 2023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/11/2022, PASSED IN O.S. 35/2019 IN IA NO.8 BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJNAGAR (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 1. This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.35/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, Chamarajnagar is directed against the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.8, whereby the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule properties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3259 WP No. 2130 of 2023 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner / plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents / defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit was contested by the defendants who put forth various defences / contentions including disputing the boundaries, measurements, location, identity etc., of the suit schedule properties. After trial, the petitioner / plaintiff filed the instant application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule properties. The said application having been opposed by the respondents, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the same amounts to collection of evidence. 4. In this context, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the material on record including the pleadings of the parties as well as the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Shadaksharappa Vs. Kumari - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3259 WP No. 2130 of 2023 Vijayalakshmi reported in 2023 SCC Online Kar 53 which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection was necessary to elucidate the issues in controversy between the parties. It is also pertinent to note that since both parties would be entitled to file their respective memos of instructions before the Court Commissioner as well as file objections to the report of the Court Commissioner and examine / cross examine him if they so desire, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants if a Court Commissioner was appointed to conduct local inspection. 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting I.A.No.8 has clearly occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3259 WP No. 2130 of 2023 6. In the result, the following; ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 28.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.35/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, Chamarajnagar is hereby set aside. I.A.No.8 filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC is hereby allowed. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to file their memos of instructions before the Court Commissioner. (iv) Liberty is also reserved in favour of both the parties to file objections to the Commissioner's report and examine / cross examine him, if they so desire. (v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the report of the Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3259 WP No. 2130 of 2023 Commissioner and his evidence are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2