Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shivanagouda vs Balasaheb on 20 August, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4774
WP No. 201740 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.201740 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA
S/O KALLANAGOUDA @ KALLAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. SRI. KALLANAGOUDA
S/O NINGANAGOUDA @ NINGOND PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
3. SRI. SHABAGOUDA
S/O NINGANAGOUDA @ NINGOND PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
Digitally signed by 4. SRI. NINGANAGOUDA
PREMCHANDRA M R @ NINGOND S/O KALLANGOUDA
Location: HIGH @ KALLAPPA PATIL,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT KAKHANDAKHI VILLAGE,
BABALESWAR TALUK
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT 586109.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M. V. V. RAMANA., AND
SRI.SANGANBASAVA B. PATIL., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. BALASAHEB
S/O SRI. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4774
WP No. 201740 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/O MALLIKARJUNA KRIPA, PLOT NO.83,
VIVEK NAGAR (W),
VIJAYAPURA-586109.
2. SRI. RAMANGOUDA @ APPU
S/O SRI BHIMARAYA
@ SRI BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3. SMT. SUSHILA BAI
W/O SRI BHIMARAYA
@ SRI BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
4. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O SRI SAHEBAGOUDA BHUSAGOND,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4
R/AT KAKHANDAKHI VILLAGE,
BABALESWAR TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT 586109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.M.V.V.Ramana., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Sanganbasava B.Patil., for the petitioners has appeared
through video conferencing.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4774
HC-KAR
Sri.Sanganbasava B.Patil., counsel for the petitioners and
Sri.D.P.Ambekar., counsel for the respondents have appeared
in person.
2. The order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Vijayapura on
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in R.A.No.98/2022 vide Annexure-H is called
into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout
in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions.
Counsel Sri.M.V.V.Ramana., in presenting his arguments
vehemently contends that the Commissioner did not take the
measurement of the property in question, hence, the report is
incomplete in most of the aspects. He argued by saying that
the Commissioner's report has not been questioned, hence the
plaintiffs can seek for appointment of the Commissioner once
again. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the order
of the Appellate Court in rejecting the application is untenable.
Counsel, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4774
HC-KAR
allowed and I.A seeking appointment of Commissioner may be
allowed.
Counsel for the respondents justified the order of the
Appellate Court. He submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of
merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with
care.
4. The point that requires consideration is whether the
order passed by the Appellate Court requires interference.
5. Suffice it to note that a suit was filed seeking
certain reliefs. Upon service of the summons, a written
statement was filed. During the pendency of the suit, the
plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for
appointment of the Commissioner and the same was opposed
by the defendants. The Trial Court appointed the
Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted a report. The
objections were filed by the plaintiffs to the Commissioner's
report. The Commissioner was also cross-examined by the
plaintiffs. The Trial Court extenso referred to the material on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4774
HC-KAR
record and partly decreed the suit on 16.08.2022. Aggrieved by
the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs
preferred an appeal in R.A.No.98/2022.
Surprisingly, in the appeal, the plaintiffs filed one more
application for appointment of Commissioner contending that
the Commissioner's report was incomplete, hence, sought
appointment of an Advocate as a Commissioner. As already
noted above, on a plaintiffs' request, the Trial Court had
appointed ADLR as the Court Commissioner, report was
submitted and the same was accepted by the Trial Court after
giving opportunity to the plaintiffs. It appears that the plaintiffs
were not satisfied with the Commissioner's report and they had
been given an opportunity to cross-examine the Commissioner.
The Trial Court had accepted the Commissioner's report. The
Appellate Court is justified in observing that the findings of the
Trial Court can be assailed by the plaintiffs in the Regular
Appeal. In my view, the conclusion and the finding so arrived at
by the Appellate Court are just and proper. The petitioners
have not made out any grounds to interfere with the order of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4774
HC-KAR
the Appellate Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is
liable to be rejected.
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP/VNR
