Karnataka High Court
Sunil S/O Raghunath Gawade vs Vithoba S/O Shivappa Gawade on 19 March, 2008
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
' SUNIL Sffl RAGHUf€ATH'.--Ga'-W*J&%ADE
~ iViILiTAR'Y" sEfivIt;%£"ra:'cs
IN THE 'HiG'H' éc:ru"T cw i<'.AR"A'TA"' "'
DATED THIS THE 197" DAYVTQEMAn.cH,%--i;";o8Li H
B_EFC)RE:T-.& _T A. 9
THE .HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE :\ _..uN..kV..VENU(§CPAl;¥S"G§iWD#; A
warr PETITT°_.N NO.2Q_?'1»#{2.905.('GMf'C§5¢)
AGED 3oJvEAr;s'Qcc:A;GR1:cL::' A _ A'
~ : 2-mars u'1I?.PARGA"'
~ m.u:<:% ALAND;-..ALANDV_BY--«._ Is SPA"
RAGHUNAT GAWA'E,' :'x"'E':- 6i)~'ffiiT§S-
OCC:1AGRICU»!..TUF£§ .VR/'0 KQTAN-..H1_P»PARGA.
TALUEfi.ALANi};'VDIST4GUi;l1A'RGiA.. % ~ %
. % % ..._PETITIONER
% (BY sm: ;qAMITi~1A%%raAs{E$H is G, Aw.)
4
I-
1';-:,~:.«;x.»;;;es.s+:x;,«m GAWADE
!
S
A E5: L5Ae*vEmis--occ: AGRICULTURE
-4.35 >-
__.r 'u.I.'n'"."-A in urnnnnr
-U .l\'u-I'nII.e.|J.:r~rnn\.1
AEgK.AtANE¥'
1:. ; .. y3t.=_LEsARsA.
4% % % RESPONDENT
CI V %% {ax VITHOBA, ADV.) THIS wm Permon IS FILED UNbE'R'AR'T'1i'fLES * ;225 AND 22.7.-OF--THE CONSTITUTION--OF3IND1A PRAYING-- 2 To QUASH THE ORDER-DATED :22.e.2oo5 -PASSED .-BY THE 2 'CGURT. -OF" MUNSIFF, A!.-A.5!D IN 0;S;!\!Q:'4!_1996 A_NNEXURE~F. This petition coming on for further hea'ri'ng;;th'e: court " V made the following:
o apnoea g % Petitioner is the plaintifi_'_v:'_li'n-.s0.$. im.;i;199s on the I an file of the Aciditionait C'i'ii'l| sgsJudge,:*r(Jr.on.) Aland. of the suit iscgh'-ediiige for permanent injunction to restrain the interfering with his possession and enjoynientl ende'g'oth'ei:f"incidental reliefs. Respondent herehi-V has ufviiedptiile iiiritten statement opposing the said i .'"'sui't'. Responoentnad filed I.A.4 under Order gs Rule 9 1.599 to~..eepsint_.ve Sm.-e-,.' Officer to conduct survey on the siiit«.._preperti,iAlas per the survey record and as per spot R""*«._Vv""possessidn. Petitioner had filed objections to the said it :."V'1a'ppii?.':atlon. The trial court considering the said __application, objections and evidence of Pw.1, has passed the order dated 22.6.2005 allowing I.A.4, appointing Teiuke serv_\,ror Alene, as an rt Commissioner and If -II II 'Z11! IIIIII \i llii directing him to execute the rzemrrsieeiors submit the report. The said order. has beene§i'ig!eisti(Jr!e:iv"ihw this writ petition.
2. From the perusai reeoifi. 'itie that the trial of the suit, hare 'net VV§iz1._'enrl'.""w'hV§en the suit was posted for evidehee I.A.4 has been filed. The.'trie.iV%:p1Cour_t tiejpesition of PW.1, has e!iewed'i'his.~'Court has held that, app'eintrhe;2.t of":-." Cerrimiesiener is far elucidating the matvtertand1i:p~'."ehei:=ie*---th.e Ceu ta effeetueiiy ec.'3udicet.. the matter," ear; heeppointed, only after the parties have V-tiled :,.A1-their euidenee and the application filed seeking V of Court Commissioner to conduct the local it' prior to both the parties to the suit placing their tevidence -n. reeerd. as premature. The said View has been rendered by this Court. ' ll) . In the cese of MISS RENUKA vs. snrornnnnnnnn AND 'THERE, reported in ILR. zoo? Kar1.3_O:29_, o;ms..rhe Court was considering the epplllcetion; it Rule 10 (a) CPC, it has been held~resV--foiiot§s.:.'A' " it K "7. It is settled position of~._lewthet Court Commissioner, cannct.Ahe"'--eppointed to collect evidence in 'su"ppor.t of ai"cjIeir"n.. Aftercompletion ' of evidence on'ht_:othe__the sides, itit is found that there is any e_mh§gul_i_:yjVin='th'e~.I'evidence adduced by the part$_es,"then -the Court may ep-point a Con-umissiponer for the .purpose of clarification of fsuclojen7:*_em«blguity;-I' in the instant case the evidence is not; yet-to' commenced em; therefore """ "entire; question.' of ambiguity In the evidence will _ notv'.erlse.lat.4thi_s stage. The Trial Court without A_ 'conside;rlng.v"-.th'e' 'settled position of law comrnltted en_'"er'ror in passing the impugned dorder eppolrsttng e Liourt Commissioner. on this gro.und"th'e impugned order is liable to be eociuasiiad.'7 .
the case of sex l(.ABDUL KHADER vs. SMT. swam»-n T or nvs...A. K.H.A.L.I_D AND OTHERS ('lN.P. discs/zoos, o.o. 1o.3.2oos), has he! III.
{I} W
-n E'.
E llfi This court in the case of Jagifirath ti' tfis. ll'-'.€.!l.'.-.9-eyi.-.---e_:_r_pa & another, reported in 198162 [J 432 has held that, if the dispute - relates to the accuracy of the sketch flied along with the plaint, the need for appointment of commissioner will arise only after the parties have adduced evidence in the suit. The power ix/v conferred upon the court for appeiratmerht"
Commissioner for !oce! tree,-:e_ction----ts..':'i'.o "e_fiebie__ V» the court for better appreciat£--on of the'*tei1:den---ie, which are or: record. Thus, ii:..isf}ciear.1:hat,"When.A there Is a dispute rega'srdlng" the" .,ide.ntityj'or"'. accuracy of the property, heed for.,a'ppovlntmVent of a Commissioner e«ri§es. after_ the peaiteeheve let in their evidence.
5. In the eaee"'offiLRamappa reported in rm xoeoxarnatake ,.m.z4.;.-2, this court in has held as 'V ._;
""3;;7.g' th§ni:,.47';"ae rower court is right and that a cornmissianer "e_a"nnot be appointed to find dot 'uasto who i$.in'poseessIon of the property. Under Ctrder_26 "e 'tiomrniseiener can Le appointed to 'makelocal ihvestigation to investigate the feats onother niateriais which are found in the " 2..;-property and to make a report in regard to that , _ metter_ to the court. In a suit -for injunction the .. f-question as to who is in possession of the property, is a matter to be decided by the Court on basis of the evidence, either or-of or documentary, to be adduced by the parties. That * _ function cannot he deiegeted to a Commissioner "who cannot find out as to who is in possession of the property. Accordingiy, the lower Court was right in rejecting the application."
6. In the case of Nnranappa Vs, smt. Ayisha & another In W.P.No._9880/2007 dated 11.7.2002' 4 \.
noticing the fact that the commissicneri' "1'ija.of-'...._been appointed before the parties havelet _--in"t'iaehf. esridence finding the same to be illegaliit has-.tieei1_.'heid 'a''ei'ioil'"o'v«is: .
"I find considerehie force in the 5sutrmission--. . ' of the iearned coonsei For "the "petitioner defendant. _ An examination ' of_ the order impugned . discloses" that-._ the 'Trial court misdirected '*.-'t-;-1e!.!;'-.on;jthe'~ .,ore.'m,ise that piaintiifs having alleged Ven'jcroach.rne'nt, the extent of encroechrnentwes reqpfireo' to the noted down by a i:emrizissioner....to'««be appointed, which would , ass-.ist5';jthe ~(.'ourt_ in coming a conclusion over =i'the_..'allegationijj'of"'encroachment by the plaintifls and iieroulri not~ .othe_riwise cause untold of ' hetdship"or'n:isery tothe defendant. At the cost ._ ofrepetition,.._it~Vn1ust be noticed that the relief in A the .suit. .one for permanent prohihitory tinjunction 'end-.not for a mandatory injunction or "possession-._o'ver alleged encroachment if any. If them was any encroachment by the defendant; piainti '*------have other remedies open rather than _ _se.eit appointment of a Court Commissioner. 'i'h-e * encroachment as alleged is not the subject V matter for consideietion in the suit for "permanent injunction. In the affidavit ' -accompanying the application, it is not the case of the piaintiffs that the petitioner had in fact encroached upon certain portion of the plaintiff':
property. The pieadinps disciose that by the application, the petitioner seeks to secure and coiiect evidence as to the area aiiegediy encroached upon by the defendant. The need to invoke Order 26 Rule 9 CPC., is not for collecting evidence but to eioeidate matters which cannot be gathered either from the material on record _.. g_....__ 1.1.- _._:_l.._.__ _.l_l.-_.....l I..- LL... ........L:_... If C77 HUI" [TIC UVIUBHCC UUCIUCEU Hf ENE pflf LIED-
.'/u 'ii
7. As there is no dispute that th_e"deterid'enVt.Vin.c:
suit/respondent herein, has not l.e¢:l..7'the._1eir:ide'nc;e.,« filed in the trial Court, ought to'-r.have es premature. Even otherwise,l:'the trial Coort'_co_iHd not have taken in..o account A-.1ir.!enc:efiof PW 1 only f_r allowing i.A.4 The trial Court has exrealw in its jurisdiction in aliowlnq4.ri--.A.-ef:in jjtheu:'i'rhpuoned order. The illega_i_ity'*~co'rrii%riittc=o'- titelvtriiellcourt-is apparent on the face of thee'i.ccord»T'enohence the impugned order is liable to be eetilaelde. .
IhA'the"'re~suit, writ petition is allowed, impugned V 'hrcierV'is'*eet--..aside and I.A.4 filed before the trial Court is ,__"dllsmi.se5ed.:;as premature. Dismissal of I.A.4 will not come way of the Coiirt considering similar application, if '"'i'~_ileo', alter the parties have led... their evidence end. -:4 case is made out in accordance with law, to appoint a Court commissioner for conduction the spot inspection. Subject '/ K to the said observations, writ petition stanéds 4_ costs. -
Ksj/-