The court has the discretion to appoint Court Commissioners to assist in the execution of its orders and that both parties can appoint their own Court Commissioners.

The orders passed on I.A.Nos.17/2022, 18/2022 and

19/2022 have been called in question in the present writ

petition.

2.

The parties are referred to their ranks before the

trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

3

3.

I.A.No.17/2022 has been filed by the petitioner in

FDP No.9/2021 seeking for a direction to respondents No.1

and 3 to suggest the name of some other person i.e.,

Government approved Engineer to function as a Court

Commissioner by discharging the Court Commissioner

already appointed. I.A.No.18/2022 has been filed seeking

permission for the petitioner to file objections to the memo

of instruction filed by respondents No.1 and 3 to the Court

Commissioner. I.A.No.19/2022 has been filed by the

petitioner in FDP No.9/2021 seeking for a direction to the

jurisdictional police to assist the Court Commissioner

in order to facilitate them to execute the Commissioner

Warrant.

4.

After hearing the matter for sometime and on

eliciting responses from both the learned counsel, the

following order is passed, which would have the effect of

disposing of I.A.Nos.17, 18 and 19 of 2022.

4

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

filed a memo proposing the name of Sri D.N. Chandrashekar,

a retired PWD Engineer.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

FDP proceedings submits that though they have no objection

for

appointment

of

Sri

D.N.Chandrashekar

as

Court

Commissioner,

who

would

be

the

second

Court

Commissioner in addition to the Court Commissioner

appointed by the petitioner in FDP proceedings as per the

order of the trial Court, whereby Sri Venugopal was

appointed as Court Commissioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner herein has no objection for acceptance of such

submission.

Accordingly

it

is

ordered

that

Sri

D.N.Chandrashekar and Sri Venugopal would be appointed

as Court Commissioners. Both parties are at liberty to file

their memo of instructions, copy of which is to be filed in the

registry of the trial Court in advance. If any objections are

made while executing Commissioner Warrant, the two Court

5

Commissioners looking into the objections, if required, would

obtain clarification from the Court.

7.

In light of the allegations and counter allegations

made by both sides, if there is any difficulty while executing

the Commissioner Warrant, the Court Commissioners are at

liberty to seek for police protection. Similarly, if there are

any issues that remain unresolved while executing the

Commissioner Warrant, the Court Commissioners are at

liberty to seek for an appropriate direction/clarification from

the trial Court.

8.

It is clarified that both the petitioner and the

respondents' counsel or their representatives including the

parties are at liberty to be present during the course of

execution of Commissioner Warrant.

9.

Accordingly, on the submission made by both

learned counsel, petition is disposed off in terms of the order

made above, which order would be the order disposing of

6

I.A.Nos.17/2022 to 19/2022, consequent by the impugned

order is set aside.

The mandate of the Court Commissioners is to submit

a report to enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion

regarding necessary works to be carried out in the suit

schedule premises. The Court Commissioners are directed

to maintain a video recording of their execution of Warrant

at the cost of both sides. Both sides to deposit Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand Only) each for the said purpose

before the trial Court, which can be withdrawn by the Court

Commissioners. The said amount would only be a

provisional payment subject to quantification of actual

expenses.

Accordingly, petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PN