Bangaioree 5V6O"_'»04"Z."V.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENuGoPALA.'r*i3C§i{vajA----T' ~
WRIT PETITEON No.30347/201.0._(GM4'C§g:§j.
BETWEEN:
Anthony Theresiuers
S/0. late Mr.Swamykannu,
Aged 56 years,
No.o|d 46, New No.176,
Micheal Palya,
Indiranagar Post, " _ .
Bangalore - 560 038. V
PETITIONE-R
(By Sri D.R.:;'iintiaréé,ha,'7}>§Vdt«.,)*«...'_' _
AND: A 'A A it
E3.L.Venkata.,KrisiTna,V » .
S[.Q. late .!"i.,D.Lakshmig3.athy,,
Aged -65 'yea rs, """ "
R/'o__No.26_, zxnjeneeya Temple Street,
Yelugunte Pa_I_ya_, ~ L
:RESPONDENT
~.1if(jE3y_'E3ri Chithatipa, Adv.)
V":"fi'hi,S.4"%.vrit petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
*3.'=..'Co.n,sti'tutioAn of India, praying to quash the order on I.A.18 fiied
kundyer I51 CPC dated 16.9.2010 on the file of City Civil Judge,
" V Ba.ng"a'l"ore in O.S.22S2/1994 vicie Annexure -~ A.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' group
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Respondent/ plaintiff has instituted V ”
petitioner/defendant seeking injunctivev.r’e*lie–fs in, re,sp.ect.V”of’_j’the., V’
suit schedule property. The petitioner/Zdefendanpt
written statement and has contested*t_he shuitt claim. on ”
the material pleadings, issues. haye~~-?.ie’en”‘raised.”Parties have
adduced evidence. ‘4 V A
2. Plaintiffifileidjan of a
commissioner, and to submit the
report. Comhjissionevrppwasl appo.i__nted.Hiiommission warrant was
executed andA’a..,_reportVv.wa:s’,’s:u’bm’it’ted to the court. Plaintiff has
filed objection,s Vu3e”ireorfirfiilesioner’s report on 08.11.2006.
as cw-1 and Ex.C–1 to Ex.C-11
were i’ma«rl:ed’v-a:’ndl’ was-v’discharged.
V -V 3. filed LA No.18 under Section 151 CPC to
,:..reca.ls!,,CW.:_1, the court commissioner, for further examination.
defendant filed statement of objections to the said
V lappplication and opposed the prayer. The trial iurt having heard
Xx”
(.-
the learned advocates, who have appeared for the parties and
having perused the record, has held that, the plaintiff cannot be
deprived of his chance to examine the court commissio.n”er,”-soince
statement of objections has been filed to the it
report, on 08.11.2006 itself. The 0bjecti’0lis
was overruled and LA No.18 was
defendant has filed this writ petitioln;i,,,,:x.,…,p
4. Sri D.R.Sundares’h’a, |eahr’ne’d«:’:7§3d–il/Qcate aififléaring for
the petitioner firstly contended’A,_th”at,’Vthe:V”iAnjip_u_gned order is
perverse and il|ega,l~’,”sinfce the,;s.a~me«. passed without
proper cons§’d’era”tio.n_oiiiffiielj”re’cord”_WofVthe suit and with due
application events which have taken
place in the suit,l4h”av’evnc}~tljeefrihflllcorrectly noticed and allowing of
I:,’}i5l}’r\:o.A1&:,,.}”:ingthe-.factsflanci”‘circumstances of the case, is wholly
s. if
5. Per’-,lAc’ontra, Sri Chithappa, learned advocate
for.–~”t’;he respondent contends that, there is default on
the commissioner in the matter of execution of the
‘Vlcoinmission warrant and the report submitted suffers from
it»
won
infirmity and illegalities. Learned counsel submits that–,.__ the
statement of objections to the commissioner report was.V:f’iie’t;’–.,.ovn
08.11.2006 and on account of certain intervening ”
the commissioner could not be cross-ev><:a'mined
Learned counsel submits that, the tria'i'.qcou_irt'i
intervening circumstances and upon_v,4"c~orrect a_pprec.i,at'i–o'n"'of' the 0'
record of the suit, has rightly.founcl–~i-t…hec'e-ssaryittoreciail CW-1
for further cross–examination'.'i ..'Le'a_rr'ievd submits that,
the impugned order,_:iri.._the:_"oi\ren facts.,__and'~,.'c'ircumstances, is
just.
6. petityion papers.
7. The point–fo’rv.Vcorisi.de»ra.tion is:
V.i/_i/hetiféiegi 1″I’.’.,li.;’7t’i’A’frSiV(A,’.l’.S and circumstances of the
Kthe “triaicourt is justified in allowing I./-1
0 Q .i\r%o.i.z3.?=-.., ,
8′.).”=”Ind’isVput’ed|y, after the commissioner executed the
6r..vti¢’;ii’iT’clflt airidiisuvbmitted the report, the plaintiff has filed
«:.’oVbje..c_tions=.dated 08.11.2006. It has been pointed out that, the
A’-“,v~:,om«rnissioner report has not been correctiy executed and the
deficient and there is a prayer to direct the court
cf
commissioner to take correct measurement of the property.
Commissioner has deposed as CW–1. Ex.C–1 to Ex.C–‘1″i~~.’fiia:i;.g
been marked. The triai court has opined that, in tie
circumstances of the case, an opportunit’,r»’s»houiciHoefproxrfidedé. to, if
the plaintiff to examine the court com’mis:s:ifonerf.’*– pit.
observed that, defendant can also ~_EvJwL’;I”‘CV”lcUFiAC.|”‘I5’2[‘ the ” V
court commissioner.
9. The impugned order one passed
without jurisdiction… the ‘rnade reference to
the record of impugned order to be
Derverse f§’$-1′”~m’of¢*:V’cros’s~e’>ramination of the court
commissioner} “hey no accrued rights of the
defendant shalifffibae In the circumstances, the
irn*p.ugn3′-j:._j’§:’)rd_er_cannot…_beetermed as either irrational act or
mesai; K rd
Inthe resufitf the writ petition is devoid of merit and shail
_ n’d__d i smissefd .
Judge