1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.NO.201274/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri Shadaksharappa S/o Veranna
Age: 59 years, Occ: Business,
R/at Ward No.7, Katibase,
Sindhanur, Raichur District.
.... Petitioner
(By Sri Mahantesh Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/o Pampanna,
(W/o Veeresh Ghanmath)
Age: 41 years, Occ: Housewife,
Katibase, Sindhanur,
Raichur District – 584 101.
2. Chandrashekar
S/o Kanki Pampanna,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business,
Katibase, Sindhnur,
Raichur District – 584 101.
3. The Commissioner,
City Municipal Council,
Sindhanur – 584 101.
... Respondents
(By Sri Sanjay Kulkarni, Advocate for R1;
R
2
R2 served; Petition as against respondent No.3 is
dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2023)
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated
06.04.2022 passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC Sindhanur in O.S.No.90/2010 vide Annexure-G and
consequently allow I.A.No.27 filed by the petitioner in the
interest of justice and equity.
This petition coming on for hearing, this day, the
court made the following:-
In a suit for mandatory injunction for removal of the
alleged encroachment on the suit road, to prove the
encroachment,
the
plaintiff
filed
an
application
for
appointment of the Commissioner for local inspection.
Accepting the objection by the first defendant, the Trial
Court rejected the application, on the ground that the
application filed before the completion of the trial is
premature.
The liberty is granted to file a fresh application, after
the completion of the trial, provided there is any ambiguity
in the evidence.
3
2.
Learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Patil, appearing
for the petitioner would submit that, the plaintiff is
complaining about the encroachment on a portion of the
suit road, and the defendant has denied the allegation of
encroachment, both in the written statement as well as in
the cross-examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff with a
view to produce best possible evidence moved an
application for local inspection. This being the position, the
order rejecting the application for appointment of a Court
Commissioner for local inspection is unsustainable.
3.
Learned counsel Sri Sanjay Kulkarni, appearing
for the first respondent opposed the petition contending
that;
(a)
The
application
for
appointment
of
a
Commissioner for local inspection in a suit for a
permanent injunction is impermissible.
(b)
If the Commissioner is appointed and the
report is secured, the same amounts to
collection
of
evidence
which
is
also
impermissible.
4
(c)
The application for local inspection before
completion of the trial is not contemplated in
the scheme of Order XXVI of the Code.
4.
Though
the
application
is
filed
under
Order XXVI Rule 10-B, of the Code, the contentions raised,
have to be necessarily examined in the backdrop of the
provisions applicable for local inspection, i.e., Order XXVI
Rules 9 and 10 of the Code. In the backdrop of the
contentions raised, the court has to answer three
questions.
(a)
Whether the appointment of a Commissioner
for local inspection amounts to collection of
evidence?
(b)
Whether the application for appointment of a
Commissioner for local inspection can lie
before the commencement of the trial.
(c)
Whether the Commissioner for local inspection
can be appointed in a suit for an injunction?
5.
Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10-B of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (Code, for Short) reads as under:
5
Rule 9 of Order XXVI of Code of Civil
Procedure
-
Commissions
to
make
local
investigations. - In any suit in which the Court
deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper
for
elucidating
any
matter
in
dispute,
or
of
ascertaining the market value of any property, or the
amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual
net profits, the Court may issue a commission to
such person as it thinks fit directing him to make
such investigation and to report thereon to the
Court:
Provided that, where the State Government
has made rules as to the persons to whom such
commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound
by such rules.
(3) Commissioner may be examined in
person.- Where the Court is for any reason
dissatisfied
with
the
proceedings
of
the
Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to
be made as it shall think fit.”
Rule 10B Order XXVI of Code of Civil
Procedure
1908
Commission
for
the
performance of a ministerial act.
(1) Where any question arising in a suit
involves the performance of any ministerial act which
6
cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently
performed before the Court, the Court may, if, for
reasons to be recorded, it is of opinion that it is
necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so
to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks
fit, directing him to perform that ministerial act and
report thereon to the Court.
(2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall
apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under
this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner
appointed under rule 9.
6.
Under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code, the
Co
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.