Karnataka High Court Sri. Dyavajji Siddappa, vs Banakar Eshwarappa on 10 August, 2010Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10″‘ DAY OF AUGUST, 2O1VOTy__”*,_
BEFORE
THE I-1ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENUGO.PA:’LA GOINOA
WRIT PETITION NO.22543]i0:O
BETWEEN:
Sri Dyavajji Siddappa,
S/O. Siddalingappa,
Aged about 65 years,
Agriculturist, _
R/O. Hanumavva Nagathih.a’IIé,5-A’;K.Q.bEa-;§p.a’,*A_ Kyasenahaili Village -573′-52:8_, ‘ ” Sokke Hobli, Jaigafur T$aIui§:,_V’..«i ” ” Davanagere..Dist;rjiCt. .
_ y _ :PETITIONER
(By s;-I ReUBVeEr.1’vVJ_a_Go’b agsaf: I>.p.Nahesh, Advs.) AND: E 5 A
1. §5avnakar’V E-shwaraI5pav,
‘S3-./O_._y Ba_naka”r ~H_..aI.appa,
«,_”‘Ag”e’-.2} a_b’o_Ut 65 yea rs.
.2′.-“_ Bar-I aka r B-asa n na,
“S/O. Ba._’_IaAkar Halappa,
“‘4«.Aged’ about 56 years.
Banakar Ningappa,
V ‘S/O. Banakar Haiappa,
«Aged about 46 years.
The respondents are Agriculturists, R/O. Kyasenahalli village —– 577528,
Sokke Hobii, Jagalur Taluk,
Davanagere District.
:RESPONDENTS
(By M/s. BPDS Associates, Advs. ) A at
This petition is filed under Articles 226;”‘and’~’«Z’21irT..vA’of
the Constitution of India praying to quash thje”ord,era-‘diate’d 9.12.2009, passed in O.S.298/2009 on I.A.-I.I.__bn the«fiIeof..>
the II Additional District Judvge”-at Da(anag_ere..i’.~vi”d.e Annexure–A. .
This petition coming on-._for preliminaryxahyearingjginai”B:f”e.
group this day, the Court mad_e”~~the foiloi/vin,g:’:v_, Plaintiff is the p’eti_t’i’onerii;’V,:’ for declaration of
title and permanent be’-en filed against the
respondaeritra’]yyho::f:’§haye~.§onteste’dV4 the suit by filing written statement. by the plaintiff to appoint a
Court Com’missioi–ieAr’=_preferably the Addl. Director of Land
(Techn’ica’l’**Assistant) to conduct iocal investigation
and to submit the report with regard to
.th_.e’memot:’?.of:;instructions. Defendants filed objections and
contended that, there are no sufficient grounds made out
Vforfappointment of Court Commissioner. Said application
has been dismissed. While dismissing the application, it
‘A/.
~
“be irrational or illegal.
has been observed that the suit is in the initial stage and
that the plaintiff is yet to commence his side of_’evi’d.e’nce
and before commencing his evidence, the|pla4infti.ff**ifhas
moved I.A. II for appointment_,of .4_’_j_Sa’i_du
order has been questioned in thislwrit_A_’p’eVtitifonV’§’
2. Keeping in view Mtiourt in
the case of MISS TAMWQVNNA AND
OTHERS reported in whereunder it has been he”: V
” of law that Court
Corr1m.is;s’ioAn:fei”– c’an”r=.ot appointed to collect ievidence””in:’:-siup.port_:”of ‘a ‘ claim. After completion ofevidlence sides, if it is found that
_.there’is_:’any.fambiguity in the evidence adduced the piafrtiesythen the Court may appoint a A _V CVo’mnfiissi_oner for the purpose of clarification of an-..–ambIgu1ty. In the instant case the evidfence is not yet commenced and therefore if .the_ guestion of ambiguity in the evidence will
as not arise at this stage.”
if The view taken by the Trial Court cannot be said to
L
rf
3. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition
stands disposed of. It is open to the petitioner/ to
seek appointment of Commissioner after the;’_:'”t’ria..I_’V:-of:
suit is complete and in case there
rnissioner o e n ocaiyins ecltiini .n” Vgac Com tmakayi iy .o.ad”et|~e
report for Consideration of«th..e Tria1.V_Courti.’i’;€ejj:for
appreciation of the evidence””~.o:n ._record..,t It If Vfgany such application is filed, the_..Tr_ia;:._ Coui’rt~–.m.a:y~iconsider the same in accordance with law.iwa-n.dfvpass:».appr_ovp’ri’at’e orders.
0 rd
361/4
3 UD GE
