SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Dyavajji Siddappa, vs Banakar Eshwarappa on 10 August, 2010

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation