SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Kar) 994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)
N. Kumar, J.
Bhimappa Rayappa Chougala - Appellant
Vs.
Shrikant - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 66192 of 2012 (GM-CPC)
Decided On: 20.02.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: Sri Sachin S. Magadum
For the Respondent:Sriyuths A.L. Sandrimani and Santosh B. Rawoot, for Respondents-1 to 6

Headnote:CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Order 29, Rule 9: [N. Kumar, J] Appointment of Commissioner - Suit for possession an injunction alleging encroachment by defendant - At the instance of plaintiff Trial Court appointed Commissioner to report regarding encroachment - Application made when case was posted for evidence - Grievance of defendant that it amounts to collecting evidence - Held, Only if the plaintiffs are able to show that the defendants have encroached upon their property, they would be entitled to the relief. Any amount of oral evidence is no a substitute or sufficient to prove the encroachment. To cut short the litigation to reduce recording evidence, the Trial Court in its wisdom, thought it fit to appoint a Commissioner even before the commencement of the Trial . That is how the duration of the litigation could be curtailed and speedy disposal of the civil matter could be achieved. Order of Trial Court upheld.

ORDER :

N. Kumar, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, appointing a Commissioner to submit a report regarding encroachment if any. This application is filed by the plaintiffs when the case was set down for evidence. The defendants challenging the said order contends that even before commencement of the proceedings, the Commissioner is appointed. If that is permitted, it amounts to collecting evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs.

2. The suit is one for possession and injunction. The plaintiffs claim, the defendants have encroached upon their property. Only if the plaintiffs are able to show that the defendants have encroached upon their property, they would be entitled to the relief. Any amount of oral evidence is not a substitute or sufficient to prove the encroachment. To cut short the litigation to reduce recording evidence, the trial Court in its wisdom, thought it fit to appoint a commissioner even before the commencement of the trial. That is how the duration of the litigation could be curtailed and speedy disposal of the civil matter could be achieved. In that view of the matter, I do not see any substance in this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top