- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2713 WP No. 32465 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 32465 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: D.N.ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY S/O. DODDANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PERESANDHRA VILLAGE, MANDIKALLU HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 104. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SOWMYASHREE.G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.V. SRINIVASAS REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.D.N. CHANNAKRISHNAMMA W/O. N. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 2ND CROSS, 24TH MAIN, (KONE) PALANAHALLI THOTA, MARUTHI NAGAR (VENKATALA), BENGALURU -560 064. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L. NARASIMHAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2024 IN O.S.NO.75/2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., WITH REFLECT TO CONCERNED REPORT GUDIBANDE VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2713 WP No. 32465 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.75/2015 is directed against the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 whereby the trial court accepted the commissioner's report submitted by the court commissioner appointed by the court for conducting local inspection. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondent- defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims and thereafter, I.A.No. 3 was filed by the defendant for appointment of a court commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The said application having been allowed by the trial Court, the court commissioner conducted local inspection and submitted his report, to which, the petitioner filed objections and summoned the court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2713 WP No. 32465 of 2024 commissioner(CW-1) for evidence and cross-examined the court commissioner. Subsequently, at the stage of hearing final arguments, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order accepting the commissioner's report by way of an interlocutory order or at an intermediate stage, which is impermissible in law, especially when after the commissioner had submitted his report, to which the petitioner filed objections and examined/cross-examined him and as such, the proper course of action to be adopted by the trial Court was to hear final arguments by considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of both sides as well as the report and evidence of the court commissioner and dispose of the suit after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both sides. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court committed an error in passing separate/independent orders on the commissioner's report and thereafter posting the matter for final arguments, thereby warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 4. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2713 WP No. 32465 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed on commissioner’s report by the trial court is hereby set aside. (iii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits by considering entire material on record including the pleadings, evidence etc., of the parties and also the commissioner's report and his evidence in accordance with law. (iv) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.