Smt Hanumakka vs Sri Guddadahalli Maranna on 20 September, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Hanumakka vs Sri Guddadahalli Maranna on 20 September, 2012

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                         1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

         ON THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

       WRIT PETITION NO.11759 OF 2011(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

1     SMT HANUMAKKA
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      W/O OBAIAH

2     SRI. OBANNA
      AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
      S/O OBAIAH

3     SRI. KUMARASWAMY
      AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
      S/O OBAIAH

4     SRI. SANNA SIDDAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
      S/O SANNAPPAIAH

      ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST
      R/O KATANAYAKANAHALLI,
      KASABA HOBLI,
      MOLAKALMURU TALUK - 577 535
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.         ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SHANTAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B M SIDDAPPA,
ADVOCATE)
                         2




AND :

1   SRI GUDDADAHALLI MARANNA
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
    S/O DODDA LAKSHMANA,
    OCC: HAMALI WORK

2   SRI. SANNA LAKSHMANA
    AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
    S/O SANNA LAKSHMANA
    OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

3   SRI. ANJANEYA
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
    S/O SANNA LAKSHMANA
    OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

4   SRI.CHANDRANNA
    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
    S/O SANNA LAKSHMANA
    OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

5   SRI. NAGARAJA
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
    S/O OBANNA
    OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

6   SRI. GUDDADAHALLI SIDDANNA
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
    S/O PENNAIAH
    OCC: HAMALI WORK.             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE FOR R3
R1, R2, R4, R5, R6-SERVED)

                     ******
                                3




     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE   (JR.DN.)  AND   JMFC,   MOLAKALMURU   IN
O.S.NO.146/10   DATED  15.2.2007  ON   I.A. NO.2
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                             ORDER

The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction and consequential reliefs. Immediately thereafter he filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of Commissioner. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the same. Hence the present petition.

2. Sri Shanthappa the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the appointment of Commissioner is just and necessary for the final adjudication of the suit.

3. On hearing the counsels and examining the impugned order I do not find any ground that calls for any interference. The suit is one for injunction. The plaintiff has to prove his case by leading cogent evidence. Immediately after filing of the plaint this application has been filed. I have perused the application. It does not warrant appointment of a Commissioner. Only because the defendants dispute the existence of a boundary, is not a ground for appointment of a Commissioner at this stage. The plaintiff has to establish his claim in the suit. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application. The same is in consonance with the facts of the case. I do not find any ground to interfere. The Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Rsk/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court