[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Y R Riyaz Pasha vs Sri M S Ramamhon on 27 January, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4288
WP No. 19486 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 19486 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Y.R. RIYAZ PASHA
SON OF LATE KHADAR SAB
AGED 75 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST AND MERCHANT,
R/O GOWNIPALLI VILLAGE,
RAYALAPAD HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SRI. M.S. RAMAMHON
by
SHARADAVANI SON OF SRIRAMALU
B
Location: High AGED 69 YEARS
Court of
Karnataka
2. SMT. VANAJAMMA
W/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR
AGED 54 YEARS
3. SRI. BHARATH
S/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR
AGED 31 YEARS
4. SRI. HARISH
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4288
WP No. 19486 of 2024
HC-KAR
S/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR
AGED 29 YEARS
5. SMT. HASEENA BEGAUM
W/O LATE TAILOR BASHA
AGED 63 YEARS
6. AYESHA
S/O LATE TAILOR BASHA
AGED 44 YEARS
7. SRI. BABJAN
S/O LATE TAILOR BASHA
AGED 42 YEARS
8. HARSHIYA
D/O LATE TAILOR BASHA
AGED 39 YEARS
9. MUBARAKA PASHA
S/O LATE TAILOR BASHA
AGED 39 YEARS
10. SRI. Y.N. ANSAR KHAN
S/O LATE MAHABOOB KHAN
AGED 56 YEARS
11. SRI. RAMAPPA
S/O CHIKKA NARAYANAPPA
AGED 68 YEARS
12. SRI. M.S. NAGARAJ
S/O SRI SRIRAMULU
AGED MAJOR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4288
WP No. 19486 of 2024
HC-KAR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
GOWNIPALLI VILLAGE,
SRINIVASPUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 161.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA R.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. G.H. SRINIVASAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R11)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 29.06.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 103/2015 ON THE FILE
OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR
(ITINERATING AT SRINIVASAPUR) VIDE ANNX-P AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the appellant in R.A. No.103/2015 on the
file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar,
itinerary at Srinivaspura, is directed against the impugned
order dated 29.06.2024, whereby the first appellate Court
rejected the report and evidence of the Court Commissioner
appointed for the purpose of conducting local inspection of the
suit schedule property.
NC: 2026:KHC:4288
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
the respondent - plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No.150/1994
against the petitioner - defendant for declaration, permanent
injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule
immovable property. The said suit having been contested by
the petitioner - defendant, the trial Court proceeded to pass a
judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner
- plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the
trial Court, the petitioner - plaintiff has preferred an appeal in
R.A. No.103/2015 which is pending before the first appellate
Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner-
plaintiff filed an application under Order No. XXVI Rule 9 CPC
seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner who conducted
local inspection and submitted his report to which the
respondent filed objections and the Commissioner was
examined, pursuant to which the first appellate Court
proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the
NC: 2026:KHC:4288
HC-KAR
Commissioner's report, aggrieved by which the petitioner is
before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent jointly submit that without prejudice
to the rights and contentions of the parties, fresh Commissioner
may be appointed to submit a fresh/new report which may be
directed to be considered by the first appellate Court in
accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and joint submissions made by both sides,
without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the
rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of
this petition by issuing certain directions for appointment of a
fresh Commissioner to conduct local inspection and issue
further directions in this regard. Accordingly the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is thereby disposed of.
(ii) The first appellate Court in R.A.
No.103/2015 is directed to appoint a fresh/new
Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit
schedule property and submit a report in this
regard to the first appellate Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:4288
HC-KAR
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both
parties to suggest the name of the Court
Commissioner to be appointed by the first appellate
Court.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the
petitioner and respondent to submit memos of
instructions before the Court Commissioner.
(v) The Court Commissioner shall consider
the memos of instructions submitted by both sides
and submit a report to the first appellate Court in
accordance with law.
(vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both
parties to file their objections, if any, to the report
of the Court Commissioner.
(vii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of both
parties to examine/cross-examine the Court
Commissioner if they so desire after submission of
the report.
(viii) All rival contentions between the parties
are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the
merits/de-merits of the rival contentions on all
aspects including the report of the Court
Commissioner and his evidence.
NC: 2026:KHC:4288
HC-KAR
(ix) The first appellate Court is directed to
appoint a Court Commissioner and proceed further
in the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
YKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
