IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 3070 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. RAMACHANDRA JOIS S/O SHIVRAMA JOIS AGE: 46 YEARS R/O: KALAKATTE, MENASE VILLAGE BHARATI NAGAR POST, TALUK: SRINGERI DISTRICT: CHIKMAGALUR-577 139.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDESH P. NADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.B. SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI ISHWAR BHATTA S/O LATE NAGU BHATTA AGED 52 YEARS R/O. KALKATTE, MENASE VILLAGE Digitally signed by H K BHARATI NAGAR POST HEMA TALUK: SRINGERI Location:

DISTRICT: CHIKMAGALUR-577 139.

HIGH COURT OF …RESPONDENT KARNATAKA (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.12.2023.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.11.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.04/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SRINGERI VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

Learned advocate for the petitioner is present. None appears for the respondent.

2. The petitioner preferred O.S.No.04/2015 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shringeri with the following prayers:

"ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ vÀ£Àß PÉÆÃjPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÁÛ£É.

C) UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ F ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV rQæ ºÉÆgÀr¹ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÉÆwÛ£À ¨Á«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀµÀÖUÉƽ¹zÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.1,50,000/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 18 ªÁ¶ðPÀ §rØ zÀgÀzÀ°è J¯Áè RZÀÄð, ZÁdð¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀ ¢£À¢AzÀ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÁ¢UÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ¤zÉÃð²¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÆ, D) F zÁªÉUÉ vÀUÀ°zÀ RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑ EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ ªÁ¢UÉ PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ, E) E¤ßvÀgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀħzÀÞ ¥ÀjºÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀåªÁUÀĪÀAwzÀÝgÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÉÆÃðavÀªÁV ªÁ¢UÉ zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ£É.

CAvÉAiÉÄà F ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁzÀ PÉÆÃjPÉUÀ½UÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ªÁ¢UÉ rQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀAiÀÄ¥Á°¸ÀĪÀAvÉ «£ÀAw¸ÀÄvÁÛ£É."

3. The aforementioned original suit has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is the owner of the schedule property and he has a well in the schedule property and the defendant has been contaminating/destroying the well by leaving sewage/waste water into the same from his premises. On the said ground, the petitioner has field a suit for legal injury already caused to the petitioner at the time of filing the suit.

4. The respondent has filed his written statement and also filed I.A.No.7 with the following prayers:

"That for the reasons set-out and sworn to in the annexed affidavit, it is prayed that the Court may be pleased to appoint any Advocate of Sringeri as Court Commissioner to hold local inspection of the suit schedule property to observe and report whether any waste/dirty water of the house of the defendant is leading to the suit schedule Well and also to observe and report the underground waste water pipe line laid behind the house of the plaintiff i.e. at the western side of the house, to carry the waste water of the house of the defendant, in the interest of justice and equity."

5. The aforementioned I.A. has been filed for appointment of a Court Commissioner to find out whether presently respondent is contaminating/destroying the well belonging to the petitioner.

6. The trial Court has allowed the application and passed the following order:

"I.A.No.7 filed by the plaintiff under Order

26 Rule 9 read with section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed.

The Advocate is hereby appointed as court commissioner for conducting inspection of the properties of the plaintiff and defendant and suit schedule well."

7. The aforementioned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the original suit has been filed for recovery of damages for contaminating/destroying the well by the respondent and it is not a case for injunction restraining the defendant from causing furth