The court upheld the discretion of the trial court to appoint a Court Commissioner for local investigation even after the case was reserved for judgment, emphasizing the need for thorough evidence appraisal.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. Notice to respondent is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol in OS No.154/2016 vide Annexure-C, in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. The petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.154 of 2016 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Mudhol for possession against the defendant therein on the ground that the defendant had encroached upon a portion of the property belonging to the petitioners. In the said suit, written statement having been filed, issues were framed, evidence was led by both the parties, the witness cross-examined the parties and the matter was posted for judgement. At that stage, on 22.07.2024, the trial Court passed the following order:

“While perusing the records of the case and preparing for the judgment this court finds necessary to appoint court commissioner for local investigation of suit properties for the purpose of better appreciation of evidence and effective adjudication of the dispute completely.”

4. Subsequent thereto, the PDO of Laxanatti village Panchayat is appointed as a Court Commissioner to submit the report. The report according to the petitioner has still not been filed. Challenging the order appointing the Court Commissioner, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for aforesaid reliefs.

5. The submission of Sri Girish A.Yadwad., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once the matter had been posted for judgement, the question of appointment of Court Commissioner, would not arise that would amount to reopening of the stage of the case. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of of this Court in the case of Rabiya Bi Kassim M v. Country Wide Consumer Financial Service Lltd., reported in AIR OnLine 2004 KAR 2 , more particularly para 9 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

“9. On consideration, we are of the opinion that once the matter has been finally heard and posted for judgment, as held by the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra) nothing is required to be done by the Court except to pronounce the judgment, and therefore the decision in Laxminarayan Enterprises case is not helpful. Admittedly, Clause (4) of Order 18 Rule 2, of CPC has been deleted and therefore the respondent- plaintiff cannot take advantage of Laxmin Arayan's case in the facts of the given case. Even if we assume it for the sake of argument without accepting, in view of the amendment in CPC, as we find, the law relating to procedure in suits and civil proceedings are governed by CPC. The CPC has been amended from time to time. Recently also, in order to cut short the delays at various levels in disposal of civil cases, CPC was amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 with effect from 1.7,2002. In the facts of the given case, sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff to complete his evidence, but he has not availed the opportunity at appropriate time and thereafter his evidence was closed. The case was fixed for defendant's evidence and ultimately the case was heard and reserved for judgment on 20.6.2001. In our view, if the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, such an application is not maintainable as otherwise it will defeat the very object of amendment in speedy disposal of the cases.”

6. His submission is that the object of amendment to the CPC in the year 1999 is to speed up the proceedings. Thus, once a case is reserved for pronouncement of judgement, an application for recall of a stage would not be maintainable.

7. Heard Sri Girish A.Yadawad., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the papers.

8. Firstly, the decision in Rabiya Bi Kassim M’s case (supra), in my considered opinion, would not be applicable since that was a case when the matter was posted for j