IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO.25324 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT.ASHA N.

W/O.SIDDARAJ,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.90A

RING ROAD, NAGAVARA

BENGALURU-560 077

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI Y.P.VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.K.R.SHASHI

W/O.MADHUSUDHAN

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/AT FLAT NO.152, 55

CAUVERY LAYOUT

THAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD

JAYANAGAR

BENGALURU-560 029

Digitally signed

by …RESPONDENT

GAVRIBIDANUR

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR G.S., ADVOCATE)

SUBRAMANYA

GUPTA

SREENATH

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

Location: HIGH

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

COURT OF

KARNATAKA ORDER DATED 25.07.2025 PASSED ON IA.NO.1/2025 FILED BY

THE RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.25868/2020 BY LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO

HALL UNIT, BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the defendant questioning the order dated 25.07.2025 passed on IA.No.1/2025 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC in O.S.No.25868/2020 by LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant initially for the relief of bare injunction. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to include the relief to declare that the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the schedule 'B' property and also inclusion of para-4(a) in the plaint, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The matter was taken up before this Court by the plaintiff in WP.No.10934/2024. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It has further passed order at clause-(d) of the operative portion, which reads as under:

"d) It is made clear that the plaintiff is not permitted to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary on the fresh relief sought to be amended to the plaint."

3. On the basis of this order, the amendment was carried out. Pursuant to the amendment, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner to conduct survey of the schedule property and to ascertain the survey number in which the same is comprised in and where the defendant has constructed her building with respect to the lis on hand in the ends of justice. This application filed by the plaintiff came to be objected to by the defendant. However, by the impugned order, the application came to be allowed and the trial Court passed an order appointing the Surveyor attached to the Office of the ADLR, Bengaluru North Taluk, Kandaya Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru as the Court Commissioner to conduct survey of the schedule property and to ascertain the survey number in which same is comprised and where the defendant has constructed her building in respect to dispute on hand and to submit report thereon along with sketch. It is this order that is questioned by the petitioner, who is the defendant before the trial Court. 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the materials placed on record, so also, the undertaking given by the plaintiff in WP.No.10943/2024. She further contends that the plaintiff has categorically given an undertaking and this Court has passed an order in the aforementioned writ petition with regard to the plaintiff not leading any further evidence in the matter, the question of appointing the Court Commissioner in this matter would lead to further injustice and it is an illegality.

4.1 It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant that the lands bear