Karnataka High Court
The Hukkeri Rural Electrical Co Op Ltd vs Sri Mallappa Dundappa Karadegouda S/O ... on 19 February, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3989
WP No. 101089 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.101089 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE HUKKERI RURAL ELECTRICAL CO-OP LTD.,
HUKKERI, TALUK HUKKERI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI-590 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. K.L. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MALLAPPA DUNDAPPA KARADEGOUDA
S/O. DUNDAPPA KARADEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591 313.
2. SRI. RAMAPPA DUNDAPPA KARADEGOUDA
S/O. DUNDAPPA KARADEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591 313.
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 3. SRI. BASAPPA DUNDAPPA KARADEGOUDA
S/O. DUNDAPPA KARADE GOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591 313.
4. SRI. APPASAHEBDUNDAPPA KAARADEGOUDA
S/O. DUNDAPPA KARADEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591 313.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3989
WP No. 101089 of 2024
5. SRI LAXMAN DUNDAPPA KARADEGOUDA
S/O DUNDAPPA KARADEGOUDA
AGED: ABOUT 68 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O SANKESHWAR
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST:BELAGAVI 591 313
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2024 PASSED IN I.A.NO.XII IN
O.S.NO.121/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SANKESHWAR VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITIONIS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i) ISSUE a writ, order or directions in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
31.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.XII in
O.S.No.121/2011 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sankeshwar vide Annexure-E.
ii) ISSUE any other writ, order or directions as this
Hon'ble Court deemed fit in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.121/2011
seeking for permanent injunction restraining the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3989
defendants from interfering with the possession of
the petitioner causing any obstruction to the use of
the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. The
matter having been posted for further evidence of
PW.1. At this stage, an interlocutory application
I.A.No.XII under Section 54 and Order 26 Rule 9
read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure
came to be filed by the petitioner seeking for
appointment of Court Commissioner on the ground
that there is a dispute relating to the measurements
of the property and this can only be ascertained by
appointment of a Court Commissioner. The Trial
Court vide impugned order dated 31.01.2024
rejected the said application. Challenging the same,
the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
there is a dispute as regards measurements
inasmuch they have been questions which have been
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3989
posed during the cross-examination and it is for that
reason, the Court Commissioner ought to have been
appointed for carrying out the measurement of the
property.
4. The Trial Court having heard the counsel for the
petitioner has appreciated the various questions,
which have been posed during the course of cross-
examination of both the witnesses and recorded
answers given by them and was of the opinion that
on the basis of available evidence, the Court can pass
effective judgment and there is no ambiguity to the
Court to decide the suit on merit, this finding of the
Court is after taking into consideration the pleadings
and the evidence, which are on record. Once the Trial
Court has come to the conclusion that there is no
ambiguity the question of appointment of court
commissioner to carry out any on the ground of
alleged ambiguity as alleged by the petitioner would
not arise. In that view of the matter, no grounds
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3989
being made out, the petition stands dismissed at
the stage of admission itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM/YAN
