IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 32110 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SR GOPAL S/O RANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. S G LOKESH S/O S R GOPAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURAM BADAVANE, NEAR WATER TANK SAKLESHPURA TOWN SAKLESHPURA – 573 134 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y. T., ADVOCATE)

Di gitally AND:

signed by CHANDANA SMT CHANDRAMMA B M W/O N. SRINIVAS, Location:

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, High Court of REPRESENTED BY HER GPA Karnataka HODER N. SRINIVAS S/O LATE NANJUDNASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR, SAKALESHPURA TOWN SAKALESHPURA – 573 134 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P.K., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

20^TH OF NOVEMBER 2024 PASSED ON IA NO. V PASSED IN O.S.NO. 273 OF 2023 BY THE C/C CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPURA (ANNEXURE F) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS IA NO. V, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 20TH OF NOVEMBER 2024 PASSED IN OS NO. 273 OF 2023 IA NO. V BY THE C/C CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPURA (ANNEXURE F), THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.273/2023 on the file of the C/C Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura (for short “the Trial Court”) is directed against the impugned order dated 20.11.2024, whereby the application filed by the respondent plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule property was allowed by the Trial Court by holding as under.

“ORDERS ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 OF CPC The plaintiff has filed application under order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, for appointment of ADLR as court commissioner for measurement of suit, schedule property and fixation of boundaries towards western side of suit schedule property.

2. The GPA holder of plaintiff in his affidavit has stated that, she has filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. When temporary injunction is in substance, pursuant to the order, the defendants have given requisition before Tahsildar to remove the wooden blocks put across western side of suit schedule property. The Tahsildar has passed an order to remove the same by violating the interim order passed this court. The defendants are the adjacent owners of the suit schedule property and trying to encroach the western side of suit schedule property. Hence, it is very much necessary to appoint court commissioner to determine the measurement of the suit schedule property and show the boundaries. Hence, prayed to allow the application.

3. The defendants have filed objections to the application by denying the contention of plaintiff. They have contended that, in a suit for bare injunction, the court commissioner cannot appointment to measure the property and fixed the boundaries. After temporary injunction is granted, the plaintiff has filed this application to mislead the court. The order passed by the Tahsildar as the plaintiff tried to cause obstructions to the usage of the road. The plaintiff is trying to collect the evidence by way of filing this application. The plaintiff has filed this application along with application for amendment of plaint only fill up the lacuna.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the application.

4. Heard arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions.

a) WP No. 201274/2022 (GM-CPC) dated

24.01.2023.

b) 1991 ClLJ 474 dated 06.10.1989.

c) 1991 (1) OLR 340 dated 22.02.1991.

The learned counsel for defendants has relied upon the following decisions.

a) WP No. 35317-18-2009 (GM-CPC) dated:

03.03.2010.

b) ILR 2010 KAR 897.

5. In light of the above contentions, the infra points that woul