The necessity for a Court Commissioner in property disputes involving encroachment claims was upheld, emphasizing the need for expert interpretation of complex documents.

ORDER :

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. These three writ petitions arises between the same parties out of the same proceedings, and therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. O.S.No.2380/2015 is filed by respondent no.1 to these writ petitions viz., Elangovan seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of suit schedule 'A' property and consequentially direct defendants to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule 'B' property after restoring to its earlier condition by removing the constructions raised thereon by defendant no.7.

4. In the said suit, contesting defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of addressing arguments, IA-15 was filed under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to re-open the case, and IA-16 was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC to summon the Assistant Executive Engineer, Planning Division, Yelahanka Zone, Bengaluru, for the purpose of interpreting a topographical survey sketch (Ex.P-32) and IA-17 was filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC with a prayer to appoint a Court Commissioner for the purpose of holding a local inspection of the properties of the plaintiff and defendant no.7 and submitting a report.

5. The said applications were opposed by defendant no.7 by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned in these writ petitions had allowed IAs-15, 16 & 17 and being aggrieved by the order passed on IA-15, defendant no.7 is before this Court in W.P.No.9493/2024. Assailing the orders passed by the Trial Court on IAs-16 & 17, defendant no.7 is before this Court in W.P.No.9243/2024. Consequent to the order passed on IA-17, the Trial Court has appointed one Sri Karthik Balla, a private architect as the Court Commissioner and aggrieved by the said order, defendant no.7 has filed W.P.No.15812/2024.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in these three petitions, submits that plaintiff has failed to produce necessary oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. For the purpose of collecting evidence, he has now filed an application seeking appointment of Court Commissioner. He submits that Ex.P-32 is self-explanatory, and therefore, there was no necessity to allow IA-16 for the purpose of explaining the said document to the court. He also submits that the Trial Court was not justified in appointing a private architect at the instance of the plaintiff, and on the other hand, the Trial Court ought to have appointed Competent Officer from BBMP as Court Commissioner. He, accordingly prays to allow the petitions.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has argued in support of the impugned order. She submits that Ex.P-32 is a document produced by the plaintiff and the said document is a topographical survey sketch of widening of road. Only a competent person who has the knowledge of the same, can explain the said document and in the absence of explaining or interpreting the said document, the same would be of no assistance to the Court. Therefore, the Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter, has allowed IA-16. Undisputedly, there is an allegation of encroachment by the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property and in normal circumstances, in a suit where allegation of encroachment is made, Court Commissioner needs to be appointed for conducting a spot inspection and survey of the disputed properties. She submits that though the Trial Court had granted opportunity to defendant no.7 to propose a person to be appointed as Court Commissioner, he had not co- operated before the Trial Court, and on other hand, he has filed only objection to the memo filed by the plaintiff proposing the name of Karthik Balla, Private Architect to be appointed as Court Commissioner. The Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has appointed Karthik Balla as the Court Commissioner who has now held the