IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22442 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI K. B. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED 74 YEARS, (IN FACT AGED 65 YEARS), SON OF LATE BABBURU THIMMA BHOVI, RESIDING AT KALAPPANA HALLI VILLAGE – 572 137, SY NO.34, FARM-HOUSE, KALAPPANA HALLI VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI SHIVANNA AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF SRI. HANUMANTHA BHOVI

2. SMT. THIMMAKKA Digitally signed AGED 55 YEARS, by CHANDANA B M WIFE OF SRI. LOKANNA Location: H igh Court of Karnataka 3. SMT. PEDDAKKA AGED 79 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. HANUMANTHA BHOVI ALL ARE RESIDING AT KALAPPANA HALLI VILLAGE – 572 137, (RESIDING IN SY NO. 6, WHERE IN SITE GRANTED TO THEM) BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 IN O.S.NO.64/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -A AND THEREBY REJECT IA NO. X AS PRAYED FOR.

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 defendant in O.S.No.64/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira is directed against the impugned order dated 08.07.2025, whereby the application I.A.No.X filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule

9 of CPC was allowed by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents had filed one more application for appointment of the Court Commissioner which was allowed by the trial Court as long back as on 19.09.2016 and the Court Commissioner having submitted his report and having been examined as CW1 and marked Exhibits C-1 to C-7, the trial Court failed to consider and appreciate that one more application for appointment of a Court Commissioner was not maintainable and the trial Court has overlooked the said aspect, which proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the earlier report of the Court Commissioner and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-

plaintiffs submits that the earlier application for appointment of a Court Commissioner and the report submitted by him and his evidence pertains to an event that had occurred earlier and the same does not pertain to a subsequent event which necessitated/warranted appointment of a fresh/new Court Commissioner once again and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims as regards maintainability of a second application for appointment of a Court Commissioner, which was permitted earlier by the trial Court, since the trial Court has not considered this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.X afresh and in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.

6. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed in O.S.No.64/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, is hereby set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted back for reconsideration of I.A.No.X afresh and in accordance with law.

iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to file appropriate interlocutory applications which shall be considered by the tria