Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 111 (KAR)

R. Devraju v. Seenappa

2014-02-04

H.BILLAPPA

body2014
ORDER : H. Billappa, J. 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 4.12.2013, passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 7969/2010 on I.A. filed under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-H. By the impugned order at Annexure-H, the Trial Court has rejected the I.A. filed by the petitioner for appointment of the Court Commissioner. 2. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Briefly stated the facts are: The petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 7969/2010 for declaration, mandatory injunction and other reliefs. At the stage of evidence the petitioner has filed application under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w section 151 of CPC for appointment of the Court Commissioner. The Trial Court has rejected the application. Therefore, this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has erred while rejecting the application. In the circumstances of the case, the Trial Court should have appointed the Court Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 5. As against this, the learned counsel for the caveator/second respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Trial Court taking into consideration that the application is premature and no ground is made out to appoint the Court Commissioner at this stage has rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned order calls for interference? It is relevant to note, the suit is for declaration, mandatory injunction and other reliefs. At the stage of evidence, the petitioner has filed application for appointment of the Court Commissioner. The Trial Court taking into consideration that the application is premature and appointment of the Court Commissioner can be considered at a later stage has rejected the application, I do not find any error or illegality in it. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make application at appropriate stage, if need be.