- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9183 WP No. 8477 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8477 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N. K. MAHADEVA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA @ CHIKKONU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A NAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TLAUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114 2. SMT. NAGAMMA D/O LATE KARIGOWDA @ CHIKKONU, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/A M. SETTAHALLY VILLAGE, K. SETTAHALLY HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438 3. SMT. SIDDAMMA D/O LATE KARIGOWDA @ CHIKKONU AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A SRINIVASA AGRAHARA K. SETTAHALLY HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9183 WP No. 8477 of 2024 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU SUB DIVISION MYSURU – 570 001 3. STM JAVARAMMA D/O LATE MULLURU KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AW NAGANAHALLY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V. HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. Y. K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 20.02.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 525/2016 BY THE LEARNED IV TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE AT ANNEXURE-F ON IA NO. 12. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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.525/2016 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.12 the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (for short “the Trial Court”) , whereby the said application filed by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC was for appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule property was rejected by the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9183 WP No. 8477 of 2024 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Government – defendant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 – defendant No.3 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. It is pertinent to note that along with the suit the petitioner had filed a plaint sketch which was annexed to the plaint. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the State Government and respondent No.3 is the private defendant filed a written statement not only disputing the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, but also disputing and denying the identity, location, boundaries, schedule, measurements etc., of the property claimed by the plaintiff. After completion of trial, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner on the ground that the same was necessary to conduct local inspection to elucidate the issues in controversy between the parties. The said application having been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9183 WP No. 8477 of 2024 opposed by respondent No.3, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the same amounts to collection of evidence and the parties had to establish their claim by leading evidence and not by appointing a Court Commissioner. 4. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the well settled principles of law governing appointment of Court Commissioners to conduct local inspection as enunciated by this Court in the light of the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of Court in the case of Sri. Shadaksharappa Vs. Kumari Vijayalaxmi & others – 2023 SCC OnLine KAR 53 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rahul S.Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi –(2021) 6 SCC 418. It is also relevant to state that in the instant case, the material on record comprising of the pleadings and evidence of the parties would indicate that there is a serious dispute between petitioners and respondent No.3 as regards the identity, location, boundaries, schedule, measurements etc., of the property claimed by the plaintiffs warranting appointment of a Court Commissioner to elucidate the issues in controversy between the parties. In any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9183 WP No. 8477 of 2024 event, since both parties would be entitled to file their respective Memos of Instructions, before the court commissioner, objections to the report of the Court Commissioner and examine/cross examine him, if they so desire, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to respondent No.3 if a court commissioner is appointed to conduct local inspection. Under these circumstances I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.525/2016 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, I.A.No.12 is allowed and the Trial Court is directed to appoint a Court Commissioner. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to submit their Memos of Instructions before the Court Commissioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9183 WP No. 8477 of 2024 (v) Liberty is also reserved in favour of both parties to submit objections to the report of the Court Commissioner and also to examine/cross-examine the Court Commissioner. (vi) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 27