Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Suma Abraham vs Mangaluru Electricity Supply Company ... on 30 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43736
WP No. 7083 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 7083 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS. SUMA ABRAHAM
W/O SRI TOMY JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT PARAPPANATTU PADAVAIL
MEENACHEL TALUK
KOTAYAM DISTRICT
KERALA STATE
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
MR. K.J. THOMAS
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O K.C. JOSEPH
R/AT KANJIRATINGAL HOUSE
MARNE VILLAGE AND POST
KARKALA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI JAYAKARA SHETTY H, ADV.)
by NANDINI M
S AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. MANGALURU ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
BEJAI, MANGALORE
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - 575 001.
2. MR. ISWARA NAIK
S/O NARAYANA NAIK
JUNIOR ENGINEER
MESCOM, KARAKAL TALUK - 574 104.
3. MR. PANDURANGA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43736
WP No. 7083 of 2020
HC-KAR
ASSISTANT LINEMAN
SECTION OFFICE
MESCOM NITTE
KARAKALA TALUK - 574 104.
4. MR. SHRIKANTAHA NAIK
S/O JAYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
KALLAPU HOUSE, PALLI
KALLYA VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
5. MR. RAVINDRA NIK
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA NAIK
KALLAPU HOUSE, PALLI
KALLYA VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
6. MR. PRANESH POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O SHANKAR POOJARY
KALLAPU KUNTADY
KALLYA VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
7. MR. BALAKRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O MARU NAIK
PADU KALLAPU
PALLI, KALLYA VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
8. MR. ANNU NAIK
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE DOOMA NAIK
PADUKALLAPU HOUSE
PALLI, KALLYA VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANJANA ABHAYVENKATESH, ADV., FOR
SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3;
R-4 TO R-8 SERVED - UNRESPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43736
WP No. 7083 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT
WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING IMPUGNED ORDER
ANNEXURE-A DATED 19.6.2019 MADE IN O.S.NO.73/2016 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM AT KARKALA,
DISMISSING THE MEMO DATED 3.6.2019 ANNEXURE-J AND
THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER
ORDER 26 RULE 9 R/W 151 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.73/2016 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Karkala against the respondents herein claiming damages of Rs.14 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the respondents have trespassed into his property and forcibly cut 60 rubber trees from his property on the pretext of clearing the electricity supply lines that were drawn over the property belonging to the plaintiff. The said suit was opposed by the defendants by filing written statement.
3. IA no.3 was filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC by theplaintiff with a prayer to appoint a Court -4- NC: 2025:KHC:43736 WP No. 7083 of 2020 HC-KAR Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and submit a report.
4. The Trial Court had initially kept the said application in abeyance for the reason that application was filed at a premature stage.
5. After the evidence of both the parties was closed, a memo was filed on behalf of the plaintiff before the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders on IA no.3. The Trial Court vide the order impugned having rejected the said memo, also dismissed IA no.3 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
6. Application in IA no.3 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with 151 CPC with a prayer to appoint any advocate as Court Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property and file a report about cutting of rubber trees taking into consideration the existence of the stems of the rubber trees that were cut, and also to submit a report estimating the loss caused by the defendants to the plaintiff.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:43736 WP No. 7083 of 2020 HC-KAR
7. The Trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2017 had kept IA no.3 in abeyance with an observation that the same will be considered after the parties adduce their evidence. After the evidence on behalf of both the parties were closed, a memo was filed on 03.06.2019 on behalf of the plaintiff with a prayer to consider IA no.3 which was kept in abeyance by the court.
8. Perusal of the order impugned would go to show that no orders have been passed by the Trial Court on the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. Vide the order impugned, the memo filed on 03.06.2019 is dismissed and consequently, IA no.3 is also dismissed. The Trial Court, earlier, had kept the said application in abeyance with an observation that the same shall be considered after the parties adduced their evidence. Therefore, it was incumbent on the Trial Court to consider the said application on its merits and pass appropriate orders. The Trial Court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the memo filed by the petitioner with a prayer to pass appropriate orders on IA no.3 which is filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:43736 WP No. 7083 of 2020 HC-KAR
9. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.06.2019 passed on the memo dated 03.06.2019 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.73/2016 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Karkala, is set aside, and consequently, the prayer made in the memo is granted. The Trial Court is directed to consider IA no.3 on its merits afresh after hearing both the parties, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK