Smt Lakshmidevi v. Sri Srinivas K

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:41850( WP(No.(24530(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010538192026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(7 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(SMT.(JUSTICE(LALITHA(KANNEGANTI(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(24530(OF(2026((GM-CPC)(

BETWEEN:((

( SMT.,LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O,SRI.,ADI,NARAYAYANA,SWAMY,N,,

AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS, RESIDING,AT,NO.26,, TH RD11 ,MAIN,ROAD,,3 ,CROSS,ROAD,,

MATTIKERE,, BENGALURU,,-,560,054, KARNATAKA,

…PETITIONER, (BY,SMT.,DR.,LAVANYA,RAMESH,,ADVOCATE,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,V.K.,RAMESHA,,ADVOCATE),

, AND:( (Dig itallytisigned SRI.,SRINIVAS,K,by0SUVARNA0T S/O,SRI.,KRISHNAPPA,Location: HIGH0COURT AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS,

OF RESIDING,AT,NO.328,, KARNATAKA TH7 ,CROSS,ROAD,, THNEAR,WATER,TANK,,4 ,BLOCK,, JAYACHAMARAJ,NAGAR,, BANGALURU,–,560,091, KARNATAKA, …RESPONDENT, , , THIS,WP,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,226,AND,227,OF,THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, (I), SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER,PASSED,BY,THE,II,ADDL.,CIVIL,JUDGE,AT,BENGALURU, IN,OS,NO.,862/2020,DATED,08.6.2026,VIDE,ANNX-A.,(II),TO, CALL, FOR, TRIAL, COURT, RECORDS, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, II,

ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL IN O.S.NO.862/2020 ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2026 passed on an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.862/2020 by the II Additional Civil Judge at Bengaluru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

¶2The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, had filed O.S.No.862/2020 seeking permanent injunction. When the matter was coming up for the defendant's evidence, the defendant had filed the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking appointment of a competent Government Surveyor as Court Commissioner to conduct a local investigation and inspection of the suit schedule property and to submit the report before the trial Court. The plaintiff had filed objections, stating that the present application is filed only to harass the plaintiff and amounts to collection of evidence. The defendant is not proceeding with the trial, and

without placing any document on record, the defendant cannot seek the appointment of a Court Commissioner to collect evidence. The trial Court, by the impugned order, had allowed the application.

¶3While allowing the application, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff's contention that the application is filed only to delay the proceedings cannot be accepted at this stage, because the dispute regarding the survey number and the identity of the property goes to the root of the matter. Further, the appointment of a commissioner for the identification and measurement of the property would not amount to the collection of evidence, since the Commissioner is only expected to note the physical features and conduct a survey with reference to the official records. The trial Court was of the considered opinion that the appointment of a qualified Government Surveyor as Court Commissioner is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and that the same would also avoid multiplicity of proceedings in future. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if a local investigation is conducted in

the presence of both parties. Accordingly, the trial court allowed the application.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff has argued in tune with the submissions and objections filed before the trial Court and submits that the trial Court cannot appoint a Court Commissioner.

¶5Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner has sought an injunction. No doubt, the plaintiff and the defendant have taken different contentions regarding the identity of the property. The trial Court allowed the application, and a Government Surveyor was appointed as Court Commissioner to conduct a local investigation in respect of the suit schedule property. Once the report is placed before the trial Court, it is for the trial Court to accept or reject the same. The trial Court rightly observed that it does not amount to collection of evidence. The defendant not proceeding with the trial or the defendant taking a different stand cannot be grounds to reject the application.

¶6In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court rightly allowed the application, and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28