[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
5 views4 pages

Case For Appointment of Commissioner 2

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed Writ Petition No. 112948/2014, which challenged the rejection of a plaintiff's application for the appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a spot inspection in an ongoing property dispute case. The court affirmed that such an appointment is premature before the conclusion of the trial and that the plaintiff may renew the request after evidence is presented. The dismissal of the writ petition does not prevent the plaintiff from reviving the request later if deemed necessary.

Uploaded by

21627 JAYARANI
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views4 pages

Case For Appointment of Commissioner 2

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed Writ Petition No. 112948/2014, which challenged the rejection of a plaintiff's application for the appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a spot inspection in an ongoing property dispute case. The court affirmed that such an appointment is premature before the conclusion of the trial and that the plaintiff may renew the request after evidence is presented. The dismissal of the writ petition does not prevent the plaintiff from reviving the request later if deemed necessary.

Uploaded by

21627 JAYARANI
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.112948/2014 [GM-CPC]

BETWEEN

MADIVALAPPA
S/O RACHAPPA HADAGALI,
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MRITYUNJAY NAGAR,
BANGAR ONI, DHARWAD. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S L MATTI, ADV.)

AND

1. NEELAVVA
W/O KALLAPPA HADAPAD,
AGE: 77 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KYARAKOPPA,
TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD.

2. BASAVVA W/O MRITYUNJAY HADAPAD


AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KYARAKOPPA,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.

3. ULAVAPPA S/O KALLAPPA HADAPAD


AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KYARAKOPPA,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
:2:

4. ANASAVVA W/O KALLAPPA HADAPAD


AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KYARAKOPPA,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.

5. SHIVAPPA S/O KALLAPPA HADAPAD


AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KYARAKOPPA,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.

6. BASAVANNEPPA S/O SANGAPPA HADAPAD


AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GANESH NAGAR,
HALIYAL ROAD,
NEAR RAILWAY GATE,
DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226


AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC II COURT DHARWAD ON I.A.NO.4 IN
O.S.NO.572/2012 DATED 06.12.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY


HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Order passed by the Court below in O.S.

No.572/2012 dismissing the application filed by the

plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule IX read with Section

151 CPC for appointment of Court Commissioner to

conduct spot inspection having been rejected as

premature has been called in question.


:3:

2. I have heard the arguments of Shri

S.L.Matti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner –

plaintiff. Perused the writ papers.

3. Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of

possession in respect of suit schedule property which is

said to have been encroached by the defendants. It is

also not in dispute that defendants have filed a suit for

bare injunction in O.S. No.351/1997, in which suit a

Court Commissioner has been appointed and he has

submitted a report. As such, parties would be at liberty

to make use of the said Court Commissioner’s report in

the instant suit, if tendered in evidence by either of the

parties.

4. Be that as it may. Application filed by

plaintiff has been rejected by the trial court as

premature. Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to

collect evidence even before the parties could tender

their evidence, only after tendering of such evidence or

in other words conclusion of trial, parties would be at


:4:

liberty to seek for appointment of Commissioner. Merely

because, defendants’ counsel has made a suggestion to

the plaintiff – P.W.1 in the cross-examination which is

to the effect that “appointment of Court

Commissioner to conduct the spot inspection may

be necessary” by itself would not be a ground for the

plaintiff to seek for appointment of Court Commissioner

at this stage. As such, trial court has rightly dismissed

the application as premature. The order of dismissal

passed by trial court as affirmed by this court would not

come in the way of plaintiff reviving their prayer for

appointment of Commissioner on conclusion of trial if

so advised.

Hence, writ petition is hereby dismissed.

SD/-
JUDGE

Rsh

You might also like