Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthareddy vs Smt. Logamani on 24 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48495
WP No. 8610 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 8610 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
HANUMANTHAREDDY
S/O GANGIREDDY
AGED 84 YEARS
R/O SOORAPALLI VILLAGE
ANDERSONPET POST KOLAR
GOLD FIELDS, REP BY HIS GPAHOLER
SRI S. RAMACHANDRAREDDY
S/O HANUMANTHAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT SOORPALLI VILLAGE
ANDERSONPET POST
KGF - 563113.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. LOGAMANI
D/O KALLAPURI
Digitally
signed by AGED 73 YEARS.
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT 2. SRI PARTHASARATHY
OF S/O KALLAPURI
KARNATAKA
AGED 68 YEARS.
3. SMT KRISHNAVENI
W/O LATE ANANDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
4. SRI ANBALAGAN
S/O LATE ANANDARAJ
AGED 42 YEARS.
5. SRI ASHOK KUMAR
S/O LATE ANANDARAJ
AGED 38 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48495
WP No. 8610 of 2022
HC-KAR
6. SRI MANOJHAR
S/O LATE KALLAPURI
AGED 63 YEARS.
7. SRI PONNURANGAM
S/O LATE KALLAPURI
AGED 61 YEARS.
8. SMT KALAI
D/O LATE KALLAPURI
AGED 56 YEARS.
9. SRI KULASHEKARAN
S/O LATE KALLAPURI
AGED 53 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9 ARE
R/O RODGERS CAMP
MARIKUPPA K G F - 563 112.
10. BERNARD DAWSON
S/O LATE P M LOUDAMMAL
AGED MAJOR
R/AT 6TH CROSS
PIPELINE ROBERTSONPET
K G F - 563 113.
11. BETSY ROZARIO
D/O LATE P M KOUDAMMAL
AGED MAJOR
R/AT MARIKUPPA K G F - 563 113.
12. QUEENY CORROLL
D/O LATE P M LOUDAMMAL
AGED MAJOR
R/AT BAND MASTERS QUARTERS
OORGAM, K G F - 563 113.
13. SMT. JYOTHI
W/O LATE GEORGE
AGED 35 YEARS.
14. ALPHONSA MARY
D/O LATE GEORGE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48495
WP No. 8610 of 2022
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS 13 TO 14 ARE
R/AT ANDERSONPET
BUS STAND, B.M. ROAD
ANDERSONPET
K G F - 563 113.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUJAYEENDRA SRIDHAR, ADV., FOR
R-1, R-3 TO R-7, R-9 TO R-12;
R-13 & R-15 ARE DISMISSED V/O DTD 21.12.2023;
R-2, R-6, R-8 & R-11 ARE PERMITTED
TO DELETE V/O DTD 16.01.2025)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD.4.4.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.21 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O
XXVI RULE9R/W SEC 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.142/2011 ON THE FILE
OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KGF VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to set-aside the order
dated 04.04.2022 passed on IA No.21 in OS No.142/2011 by
the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner herein has filed OS No.142/2011 before the
jurisdictional Civil Court at KGF, Kolar, seeking the relief of
declaration of his title and consequential relief of perpetual
NC: 2025:KHC:48495
HC-KAR
injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. The
contesting defendants have filed written statement and have
opposed the suit claim. In the said suit, IA No.21 is filed on
behalf of the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with
Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to appoint a Court
Commissioner/ADLR for the purpose of local inspection of the
suit schedule properties and submit a report. The said
application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing
objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has
rejected IA No.21 and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial
Court is not justified in rejecting IA No.21. He submits that for
the purpose of identification of the properties in dispute, a
report by the Court Commissioner would be helpful to all the
parties in the suit. He submits that whenever oral and
documentary evidence placed on record are not sufficient to
properly and effectively adjudicate the dispute, in normal
circumstances, the Courts should appoint a Court
Commissioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:48495
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that in the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with
Section 151 of CPC, a prayer is made not only to appoint a
Court Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey of
the suit schedule properties but also to fix the boundary stone
after measuring the properties of the defendants. The Trial
Court, having appreciated this aspect of the matter, has rightly
rejected IA No.21. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Petitioner has prayed in IA No.21 to appoint ADLR as
Court Commissioner to survey suit schedule properties and to
fix the boundary stone after measuring the properties of the
defendants. The contesting defendants have filed objections to
the said application. Suit schedule properties are land bearing
Sy.No.34 measuring 5 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.35
measuring 3 acres 10 guntas situated at Soorapalli Village,
Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk.
7. Petitioner has approached the Trial Court seeking the
relief of declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule
properties and also for a decree of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with
NC: 2025:KHC:48495
HC-KAR
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties. After the parties had lead their evidence before the
Trial Court, when the suit was at the stage of arguments,
application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of
CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking appointment of
ADLR to survey the suit schedule properties and also to fix the
boundary stone after the defendants' property is surveyed.
8. It is trite that whenever it is found that oral and
documentary evidence placed on record is not sufficient to
properly adjudicate the dispute between the parties to the suit,
the Court in its discretion can appoint a Court Commissioner for
the purpose of holding a spot inspection of the property in
dispute and file a report. In the case on hand, the properties in
dispute are mentioned in the schedule given to the plaint.
However, the prayer is made in the application is not only to
survey the suit schedule properties but also to survey the
properties of the defendants and fix the boundary stone. Such
a prayer could not have been made by the plaintiff in his
application. The Trial Court ought to have moulded the prayer
made in the application and ought to have granted the prayer
NC: 2025:KHC:48495
HC-KAR
insofar as it relates to request made on behalf of the plaintiff to
survey the suit schedule properties and submit the report. The
law with regard to appointment of Court Commissioner has
been laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Sri. Shadaksharappa vs. Kumari Vijayalaxmi and Others
in WP No.201274/2022 disposed off on 24.01.2023.
9. In the background of the judgment in the case of
Shadaksharappa (supra), if the facts of the present case is
examined, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court ought to
have appointed a Court Commissioner for the purpose of
holding a local inspection of the suit schedule properties,
survey the same and submit a report. Under the circumstances,
the order impugned passed by the Trial Court to the extent it
relates to rejecting the prayer made in the application by the
petitioner to appoint a Court Commissioner for the purpose of
surveying the suit schedule properties and submitting a report
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:-
10. The writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned
dated 04.04.2022 passed on IA No.21 filed in OS No.142/2011
by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF, to the extent
NC: 2025:KHC:48495
HC-KAR
it relates to rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner to
appoint jurisdictional ADLR as Court commissioner for the
purpose of surveying the suit schedule properties and
submitting a report is set-aside and the prayer made in the said
application to conduct survey in respect of defendants
properties and fixing the boundary stone is confirmed.
Consequently, jurisdictional ADLR is appointed as Court
Commissioner to hold a local inspection and survey the suit
schedule properties and submit a report.
11. It is needless to state that the Court Commissioner
appointed by the Trial Court shall hold spot inspection and
submit a report after survey of the suit schedule properties
based on the instructions received from both the parties and
also taking into consideration the observations made by this
Court in this petition.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
