Karnataka High Court
Sri M G Ramakrishnaiah vs Smt Lakshmamma on 13 January, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1296
WP No. 23100 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 23100 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M G RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O LATE GANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT MESTHRIRAMANNANAPALYA VILLAGE
KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572130
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKABORAIAH
W/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT VENKATAREDDIPALYA
Digitally signed KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
by HEMALATHA
A TUMKUR DISTRICT 572130
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED: 09.08.2024 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL IN O.S.NO. 137/2016
(ANNEXURE-N), CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT
TO ACCEPT THE COMMISSIONER REPORT DATED: 23.03.2022
ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FSL
MADIWALA BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1296
WP No. 23100 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.137/2016 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, whereby the report submitted by the Court Commissioner has been rejected.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner for the purpose of verification of disputed LTM with the admitted LTM of the plaintiff and submit a report. Pursuant to the same, the Commissioner submitted a report stating that in respect of the admitted signature of the plaintiff, which has been marked as Q1, Q2 and Q4, it matches well in comparison with the admitted signatures. But in respect of status of -3- NC: 2025:KHC:1296 WP No. 23100 of 2024 Q3 is concerned, it is digital thumb impression which was taken before the sub registrar office and the report states that it is unfit for comparison. The trial court has rejected the Commissioner's report and ordered for appointment of a Commissioner afresh. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 has filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 contended that under Order XXVI Rule 12(2) of CPC, if the orders of the court for appointment of the Commissioner is not completely executed by the Commissioner, if the court is dissatisfied with the report, it may direct for further enquiry, court cannot reject the entire report. The same can be considered at the time of the final disposal. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court W.P.No.10105/2020 disposed of on 21.09.2020.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that if the report submitted by the Court Commissioner is not in accordance with law, if the court is not satisfied with the report, the court has a power to -4- NC: 2025:KHC:1296 WP No. 23100 of 2024 reject the report and appoint a new Commissioner. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of SHAMANNA SETTY vs. B.L.CHANNEGOWDA reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3588.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 07.01.2016 is not executed by the plaintiff and the LTM which has appeared in the sale deed is not of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to examine the disputed LTM with the admitted LTM and submit a report. There are four signatures identified as Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4. The Commissioner appointed by the Court has examined the signatures found in Q1, Q2 and Q4. The signature shown in Q3 is a digital signature. Since it is blurred, he has submitted a report that it is unfit for comparison. The trial court found that LTM found in Q3 is digital thumb impression. It is a vital and important to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:1296 WP No. 23100 of 2024 find out the status of Q3, since it is a digital thumb impression which was taken before the sub registrar. Therefore, the court wants a comprehensive report in respect of the status of thumb impression of Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4. If the court is not satisfied with the earlier report submitted by the Commissioner, the court can reject the same and appoint a new Commissioner. In view of the above, the court has rightly rejected the Commissioner's report dated 08.03.2022 and appointed a fresh commissioner. There is no illegality or error in the order passed by the trial court.
7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75