Mr Santhosh Kumar C L vs M/S.Nisco Ventures Pvt Ltd on 6 July, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Santhosh Kumar C L vs M/S.Nisco Ventures Pvt Ltd on 6 July, 2010

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

 *  1HA:j{>1:s1.,,R0AE,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 06'?" DAY OF JULY 2010 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sATYAmA--EA¥ANA ._ 3

WRIT PETITION NO.19480:/20};
BETWEEN: O

MR SANTHOSH KUMAR C L
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
s/0 L.N.MURTHY, NO.1'6;'~~._
RAILWAY PARALLEL  A
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BANGALORE 560001  "

{By Sri : B  &..1Assi*S)

AND

M/S.NISC0.VEP~ITURFgS'P\?*i'.4L.TD
FORMELY"VKNOWI*¥ AS' ..  

M/S NITESH~VCONSTRU_CV'Fi'ON PVT. LTD
NO.2DI, 2ND FLOOR.

EANQALOIEE' 560042,

 REP; VBY...1'1'S"FxINANCE CONTROLLER
'M_R;__s. FIAQABEEUSIMNAM

A u;m'§~sr:5 Homife, ':3a.«A'i>u. Q
(By'sri ;s_7_'P\US--HPAVENI AJIT, ADV)

.  PETITIONER

 RESPONDENT

 WRIT PETiT§ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

A   OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH THE ORDER D'§'.18.6.10 IN OS.NO.3768/09 ON

 TLEIE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. cm: 'CIVIL JUDGE.
 -BANGALORE [ANN--F} WHEREIN THE

LEARNED JUDGE

°'*'\



HAS ALLOWED THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THERESPONDENT UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING APPOINMENT OF
COURT COMMISSIONER. 1 

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR 

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER

This is defendants petition inqpugning'4'the.Aorde'r'dated 18.6.2010 on IA.No.III ﬁled under o£a_ef--2e Ride: Acpigiu OS.No.3768/2009 on the ﬁle o'f'i>..}:("L'{_Addl;City':Ciidi Judge, I Bangaiore.

2. The case-'--o_f petitiolieitf theapiiresipondent herein ﬁled the"s'uitr..see1{infg'recovery aria sum of Rs.1,62,78,554/'- as theilarflouritj ::':f)i__",ti.tiO].'l€I' herein in respect of contractual4-xyorkregzeciitcdi" by respondent on the property V. p_ belonging' to petitioner', It is the case of petitioner that in the ,Vsuitaa,riO"'application is ﬁled by respondent seeking a'ppoii'1tm'cfIt._ opf"Court Commissioner to measure and value

--V the u4constani'ction put--up by respondent on the property in O Viquestionf The petitioner states that he could not ﬁle O objections to the said application, which is ailowed without it "'h'eanng him. 'wr

- 3..

3. The petitioner further contends that after the respondent gave up construction work on the property in question, petitioner has taken up further constructionwork in the ﬁrst ﬂoor through other agency. He contends"

measurement and valuation of the entire construction' oi? ~ now is taken, it would affect hi_s....interest.W"" vfiufthervg contends that question of seeking re§)ort'i"egarding_\rali;:ationj' also does not arise for the reason that constt'1ictio.nVVVw9ork . * carried out by petitioner is based the anproired that was submitted from to Tthe value of such structure will be.._ca1c111ater1:=as -per "'tf;.ev"ct)ritract which is already". _v A '23. it

3. Aria-ime'ima:tef heard at length, the Counsel for gp*-etitioner memo stating that he would have no 'ob."igec'tion if' "the appointment of Court Commissioner is l'res«t'ricte~:l:"=o.n13}'-to measuring construction that has taken place in of basement and ground ﬂoor without giving "orgy oninion regarding valuation. The same is accepted by A Counsel for respondent. Memo filed to the said effect is taken . .. _ho_r1 record.

,'***r 6:. Accordingly. the order of trial Court in appoirﬁirig the Court Cornmissioner is modiﬁed. _ Commissioner is directed to submit .report*' :1'eg;3rdin:g4--At11e'4 construction put up by respor1der1t:=.A_hereir.1fi»irizbhasenierioangi. .' ground ﬂoor of the property injqi 1f3Stio1'1J'~.

With this modification  petition.  of
without any order as to'  V'     Vi
  '?AﬁDGE

.5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court