Karnataka High Court
Smt P Leelavathi vs Sri Eshappa S/O. Pampapathi Angadi on 29 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14562
WP No. 107135 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 107135 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. P. LEELAVATHI
W/O. PALA LAJAPAT RAI
(D/O. LATE K. NAGANNA),
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSE WIFE,
2. SMT. C.H. VARAMAHALAKSHMI
W/O. C.H. MANOHAR RAO
(D/O. PALA LAJAPAT RAI),
AGED 59 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSE WIFE,
3. SRI. P. SRINIVAS S/O. PALA LAJAPAT RAI,
AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
4. SMT. P. INDRA W/O. P. SRINIVAS,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
AND HOUSE WIFE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
5. SRI. P. ARAVIND S/O. P. SRINIVAS,
AGED 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
6. SRI. P. LENIN S/O. PALA LAJAPAT RAI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
7. SRI. P. VENKATA DURGAPRASAD
S/O. P. LENIN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
8. SRI. P. VENKATA BALAJI S/O. P. LENIN,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14562
WP No. 107135 of 2024
HC-KAR
9. SRI. K. NAGESHWARA RAO,
S/O. LATE K. NAGANNA,
AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
10. SMT. AKKARAMBA
W/O. K. NAGESHWARA RAO,
AGE. 66 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSE WIFE,
11. SRI. K. NAGARJUNA
S/O. K. NAGESHWARA RAO,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
12. SRI. K. VENKATADRI
S/O. LATE K. NAGESHWARA RAO,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
13. SRI. K. VIJAYA BHASKARARAO
S/O. LATE K. NAGANNA,
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
14. SMT. K. LAKSHMI
W/O. K. VIJAYA BHASKARARAO,
AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
AND HOUSE WIFE,
15. SRI. K. RAVICHANDRA @ CHANNAPPA
S/O. K. VIJAYA BHASKARARAO,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
16. SRI. K. VINYA KUMAR
S/O. RAVICHANDRA @ CHANNAPPA,
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
17. SRI. K. ASHOK
S/O. K. VIJAYA BHASKARARAO,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
18. SMT. K. SUBBAMMA
W/O. LATE K. VENKATESHWARA RAO,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14562
WP No. 107135 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
AND HOUSE WIFE,
19. SRI. K. VISHWESHARAYYA
S/O. LATE K. VENKATESHWARA RAO,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
20. SRI. K. NAGANNA S/O. VISHWESHARAYYA,
AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
21. SRI. K. RAJU
S/O. LATE VENKATESHWARA RAO,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MUSTUR-DAGGI,
TQ. KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583 282.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. ESHAPPA S/O. PAMPAPATHI ANGADI,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUSTUR VILLAGE, TQ. KARATAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583 282.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23-09-2024
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARATAGI IN O.S.
NO.318/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.
NO.3.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14562
WP No. 107135 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed assailing the order dated
23.09.2024 rejecting the application in I.A.No.3 in
O.S.No.318/2013 for appointment of Court Commissioner.
2. The suit is filed by the present respondent for
injunction. The defendant in the said suit contends that
there is a pathway in the suit property and existence of the
pathway can be established only through the report of the
Court Commissioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that the petitioners in this petition had filed a suit for
declaration and injunction claiming right in the very same
property and in the said suit an application was filed for
appointment of a Court Commissioner. Same was rejected
and later the suit was dismissed holding that the suit
scheduled way is not in existence and appeal was filed
against said judgment and decree. The appeal was also
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14562
HC-KAR
dismissed and Regular Second Appeal is pending before the
Court. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that the application for
appointment of a Court Commissioner is not maintainable
as the issue relating to existence of the road is already
adjudicated.
4. The fact that the suit and the first appeal are also
dismissed and Regular Second Appeal is pending for
consideration is not in dispute. The issue whether the
pathway is in existence or not has to be now adjudicated
before the pending Regular Second Appeal. Under these
circumstances, the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the
application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for
reasons assigned by this Court.
5. If at all the Court Commissioner is to be appointed,
it is for the petitioners to seek appropriate relief in the
pending Regular Second Appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14562
HC-KAR
6. Under these circumstances, the petition is
dismissed.
7. The dismissal of the petition should not come in the
way of petitioners seeking appropriate relief in the pending
Regular Second Appeal.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:BCK
