Karnataka High Court
Ashwin S/O Nagappa Humbarwadi vs Prakash S/O Veerabhadrappa Jeer Alias ... on 24 January, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1698
WP No. 100473 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 100473 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ASHWIN S/O. NAGAPPA HUMBARWADI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.SUKHI APARTMENTS, NO.17,
RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE-560025.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.S SHETTAR & SMT. KAVYA C. SHETTAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. PRAKASH S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA JEER @ HUGAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DHAKANI ONI, GUJJAR BASTI,
GADAG-582101, TQ & DIST. GADAG.
2. ANASAVVA W/O. TOTAPPA JEER @ HUGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
R/O. MAKAN GALLI, GADAG-582101,
TQ & DIST. GADAG.
3. SANGAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA GOJANUR,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. COTTON MARKET ROAD,
Digitally
signed by GADAG-582101, TQ & DIST. GADAG.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
MANJESH S/O. KALLAPPA CHAKRAPANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4. SUSHEELA W/O. NAGAPPA HUMBERWADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O. SUKHI APARTMENTS NO.17,
RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALOE-560025.
5. ABHAY S/O. NAGAPPA HUMBERWADI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SUKHI APARTMENTS, NO.17,
RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALOE-560025.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1698
WP No. 100473 of 2024
6. RAVI S/O. NAGAPPA HUMBERWADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SUKHI APARTMENTS, NO.17,
RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE-560025.
7. USMANASAB S/O. HANIFASAB KAGADAGAR,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAGADAGERI ONI,
NEAR SAYYAD SAHEB GORI,
GADAG-582101, TQ & DIST. GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GADAG IN
FDP.NO.02/2004 ON ORDERS ON COMMISSIONER REPORT DATED
07-09-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY DIRECT THE COURT
BELOW TO DRAW THE FINAL DECREE AS PER THE EARLIER
COMMISSIONER REPORT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
A) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by Learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Gadag in FDP. No.02/2004 on orders on Commissioner report dated 07.09.2022 vide ANNEXURE-F and thereby direct the Court below to draw the Final Decree as per the earlier Commissioner Report.
B) Pass any other orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1698 WP No. 100473 of 2024
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without setting aside the earlier court commissioner's report, a new court commissioner has been appointed vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2022.
3. A perusal of the said order indicates that the earlier commissioner was examined as also cross-examined and it coming to light that the commissioner had not issued any notice before carrying out inspection, the earlier report not having been accepted, a new commissioner is proposed to be appointed. If that be so, the contention now raised that the earlier commissioner's report has not been set aside would not be correct inasmuch as the earlier commissioner's report has never been accepted and a new commissioner is now sought to be appointed for carrying out the survey and division of the properties.
4. At this stage, Sri.C.S.Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:1698 WP No. 100473 of 2024 new commissioner has already been appointed, who has carried out survey and has filed his report. The grievance in respect of that report, according to him, is that the division is not in terms of the applicable law and the division has not been made properly. Any objections that the petitioner may have in respect of the commissioner report submitted by a new commissioner would have to be filed before the FDP court, which would have to consider the same in accordance with law and pass necessary orders. With the above observation, the petition stands dismissed.
5. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25