The failure to mention or correctly quote a statutory provision in an application does not invalidate a court's order, provided the court has the legal jurisdiction and authority to grant the requested relief.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.03.2026 ON I.A.NO.1/2024 IN FDP.NO.2/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR FILED UNDER ORDER 26 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE- H AND THERETO AND TO DISMISS THE I.A.NO.1/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 UNDER ORDER 26 OF CPC IN FDP.NO.2/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND TO ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OF WHATSOEVER NATURE, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO BE GRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur, (for short ‘FDP Court’) on I.A.No.1 in FDP No.2/2024, whereby the said application filed for appointment of Court Commissioner has been allowed.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.2/2008 seeking for partition and separate possession. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 07.02.2014 has decreed the suit. The said judgment and decree has been confirmed by this Court in RSA No.1969/2015 on 16.12.2022. Thereafter, the final decree proceedings has been initiated. The petitioner herein, claiming to be a purchaser of a portion of the suit property, has been impleaded in the final decree proceedings. During the pendency of the proceedings before the FDP Court, respondent No.1 herein had filed an application under Order XXVI of CPC seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner. The FDP Court, by the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, allowed the application and appointed the Taluk Surveyor, Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk, as Court Commissioner to effect the partition of the properties. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the respondent No.1 herein before the FDP Court for appointment of a Court Commissioner does not disclose the specific provision of law under which the such relief is sought for. On that premise, it is urged that the FDP Court had no jurisdiction to appoint the Taluk Surveyor, Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk, as Court Commissioner for the purpose of effecting partition.

4. The said contention is untenable. It is a settled principle that mere non-mentioning or incorrect quoting of a statutory provision does not vitiate an order passed by the Court, so long as the Court possesses the requisite power under law.

5. A perusal of the application clearly indicates that the relief sought was for appointment of a Court Commissioner to effect partition in terms of the preliminary decree. Under Order XXVI Rule 13 of CPC, the Court is expressly empowered to appoint a Commissioner for such purpose. Therefore, the FDP Court, having the necessary jurisdiction and authority, has rightly exercised its power under the said provision and appointed the Taluk Surveyor as Court Commissioner to effect the partition of the properties.

6. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed