- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2853 WP No. 32724 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 32724 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M LOKESH S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O WARD NO 23, MADHUVANAHALLI BADAVANE K.R. NAGARA, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VISHAKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O WARD NO-21 MADHUVANAHALLI BADAVANE K.R.NAGARA, MYSURU DIST-571602. 2. MAHADEV M.V. S/O LATE VISHAKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS MADHUVANAHALLI BADAVANE K.R. NAGARA MYSURU DIST-571602 3. RUKMINI M.V D/O LATE VISHAKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS MADHUVANAHALLI BADAVANE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2853 WP No. 32724 of 2025 K.R. NAGARA MYSURU DIST-571602 4. HEMAKSHI D/O LATE VISHAKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS MADHUVANAHALLI BADAVANE K.R. NAGARA MYSURU DIST-571602 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.C.VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC K.R.NAGAR ON IA NO. 5/2025 DATED 07-04-2025 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND PLEASE TO ALLOW THE IA AS PRAYED FOR, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HERING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 2019 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.5 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajanagara, Mysuru, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule of 9 CPC for appointment of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2853 WP No. 32724 of 2025 a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule property was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent/defendant for declaration, mandatory injunction, etc., in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the respondent/defendant, the petitioner filed the instant application I.A.No.5 for appointment of Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule properties. The said application having been opposed by the respondent/ defendant, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the interim order declining to appoint a Court Commissioner on the premise that even if a Commissioner is appointed, it may not be possible for him to identify and submit a report. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court clearly misdirected itself in prejudging the issue and coming to the erroneous conclusion that the commissioner so appointed would not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2853 WP No. 32724 of 2025 be in a position to identify and submit a report as regards the alleged encroachment. In this context, it is also relevant to state that the merits/demerits of the rival contentions cannot be gone into or considered while considering an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner, particularly, when both parties would have an opportunity to file their memos of instructions before the Court Commissioner and also submit objections to the Commissioner's report after the same is submitted and further examine/cross-examine the Court Commissioner if they so desire. It is also pertinent to note that the material record discloses that there existed serious dispute between the parties as regards location, identity, encroachment etc., of the properties claimed by both sides, which requires appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection. 3. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shadaksharappa Vs. Kumari Vijayalaxmi - 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 53, I am of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2853 WP No. 32724 of 2025 the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and a Court Commissioner be appointed as sought for, in I.A.No.5 by issuing certain directions. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 07.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.5 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajanagara, Mysuru District, is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. iv) The Trial Court is directed to appoint a Court Commissioner and secure a report and proceed further in the matter. v) Liberty is reserved in favour of both sides to file their respective memos of instructions before the Court Commissioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2853 WP No. 32724 of 2025 vi) Liberty is also reserved in favour of both the parties to file their objections to the report of the Court Commissioner and examine/cross-examine him, if they so desire. vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the report of the Court Commissioner and evidence are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. viii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. ix) Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22