K B Yathiraj vs B H Savithramma on 2 September, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K B Yathiraj vs B H Savithramma on 2 September, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2O;o_:"a._T

BEFORE

THE I-iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.l\i. VENUGO_PAL.A::GO-WDA "  

WRIT PETITION NO.2394i?,/20.iOz f:(GA{i'-ic'PC)   A  ii'

BETWEEN:

K.B.Yathiraj', S/o. K.Basavanya'ppa, _

Aged about 52 years,   - 

Occ: Advocate, R/o. 1'1.F""'Cro«ss,,. .  
Durgigudi Extension,      ' _
Honnlai Town, Davanagere iDist_ris;t. "  --- 

 T T T T       ..  U. 

(By Srnt. -SukVa'n~y'a., 'for
Sri Maha ntesh S.'i*i,jos_rnatr:,, Adv.)

.A_|.3|___:. ..

'  B.i~i..Saa,vith'ramma," """ 

._ . D,/.0. Hvanumanthappa,
  Ag_e"Major,- O.r_:c":, Anganavadi Teacher,
' R/'o._._«Ba'nni.ko'd,'u"village, Honnali Taiuk,

 (By S'riTTBasavaraj M.Mekki, Adv.)

D'avanaTgeres_ District.
 .  ...RESPONDENT

  This writ petition. is filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned

  -~-order of appointing the suo-moto two Court Commissioner

by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Harihar in
O.S.!\io.100/2002 dated 1.2.2010 vide Annexure -- K.



This petition coming on in preliminary heauré-n"g._,_B'
group this day, the Court made the foiiowing: '  * 

ORDER

Respondent/plaintiff has in;-;ti"t'u"ce.d_ 'tsuittapainst[kth'e, petitioner/defendant for the reiief mandatory injunction. stVatem--e,nt_, tiiedri' issues have been struck and.rt'riai,_:'has.taken'piace. At the stage of hearing the u"_nLo'ti.cing that the Commissioner .-a;'p'p_oinjted_,'ear'|.i:ei5T_--has "not executed the commissior1"v»i'arrarit.,_ theju-..ffri~.a,iu "Co'tI:r"t.,_has suo motu ordered the appointmventof,,two4Vi's,eV'p'a_rate court commissioners, one for the plaintiff'sx'si_d'e'._andfariother for the defendant's side, dire€:teudi"to condu.ct__,locai inspection, prepare the sketch *and,,su.i;imit..:report. It has been observed that, they shaii H inspection on different dates. The said j orderhas been questioned in this writ petition. a Heard the learned counsei on both sides and upuehrtuised the record. I,» L V

3. S.75 of CPC empowers the Court to.i'~.app_o~int Commissions which includes the conducting insvestigation. 0.26 CPC providesthe pro'cedure.V"'= "

0.26 provides for commission to rnakie'local»i_nvestiga't--i.ons.g If the Court deems a local .in_Vestigat'i»on to iie sfee,uisi--i:e or."

proper for the purpose ofp____elucid.ating.' any matter in dispute, the Court can"'~issu_e"--_a %f;'on3a"i'=ii"ssio,n to such person as it thinks fit directing."i"I'if'F?l.'§0vF'71?i3<_é.5U¢h:'»'§"iVe5tiQat50n and to report the order, the Cou rt a_shou_ld' Vlrecorﬁd reasons_as to the necessity for having a reportrgofypthei'C.ornrn.i_s's«ioner by conducting the local investigation...,V'The irnpulgned order when perused, would i §nd'i'cate'i'ith"at__ the 'reduirement of :i2..9 of 0.25 are not met ~..andth.e=.fFriVal.Viiiourt acting irrationally and illegally has pas.sedv_.-thei..- impugned order. Instead of appreciating evidence' placed on its record by the parties and Vﬂproceeding further, it has passed the impugned order __\n}hich in the facts and circumstances \c;the case, is not warranted. /"' f' In the result, writ petition stands allowed. Ifrnp:£3*gVTn'e4d order stands quashed. The Trial Court is hear the arguments and disposeo-fr the suitvieXip'ed'it.ions'iy V and at any event, withén one arguments are compteted.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court