W P No.26] 4//2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 16% DAY OF FEBRUAR:f~<2o1.o..'__j ;_. A'
BEFORE ' H
THE I-ION'BLE DR. JUSTICE B"HA1@ 'r:HAV;=afsALi§' 'V T 1}
WRIT PETITION No.2514/2o3.Ao'{.oM--c,iii-3): "
BETWEEN V V.
1.
Sri Bachappa, V
S/o late Venkataramanappa, ‘
Age: 69 years, A
C / 0 Social Amenities Associationg. V
No.416, 15¢ Main Road; I V’
New Thippasandra, V . —
Banga1ore–560 O71.-5. ..
2. Sn’ G K PLiru”si1Aothamst:’iGoWd;i;
S/0 late Krisi:1r1a_1:r1u1*tii;{;ew.._4″‘i
Age: 58 years; — 4’ ‘ ‘
Residing at No.653, . .
13′ Cross, 111″ Main, * V
HAL 2nd Stage, _ – _ ‘ ‘
V . ‘ ‘V A ….. .. ‘V
Ba ng’aio&re’¥’560’~ .008: . Q’ Petitioners
(By sfor petitioners)
V
‘S./o.H’at_jsh_ Vardhan Vanna,
years.
Res~:idi’ng_ at N o.84/ H ,
V ._4*** Cross, 4″” Main.
W P No.2614//2010
HAL III Stage,
Ba.nga1ore–560 075. Respon-dent
uvat–
This Writ Petition is fiiecl under Articles 22’6″xot’-_
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the eimpugireid ‘o_r<:1er'dated
16.11.2009 made in O S No.3212/2003'._Von :the='fi1'e,of. 'XI jA,C1c11:*:1City
Civil Judge, Bangalore City {CCH~8),p at An'11.e){1:re~A. A ' –
This Petition coming on for the
Court made the following:
The petitioners/t1’fete’ndantsLin / 2003 on the file of
XI Addl. City Citrtl are before this Court,
praying for :’gua_sh:in1g’.Vth:e”iorder~._dated 16.11.2008 passed on an
application (1.A;1I1i}1r11¢civ.ai:eef’:ofaé’r XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of
c P c at Arinexure~1\;’» ” ” ”
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
:’v.:AA’1*espondent has a suit against the present petitioner for
“”1:dVe’e1a’I’ation aim} possession in respect of the suit schedule property
No.259 situated at 153′ Main, ‘B’ Cross, HAL IH Stage
H Bangalore. He submits that petitioner No.2 has filed a
I
‘x._t
W P No.26l4//2010
written statement contending that no site bearing No.259,vvVas”i.rnade
by the Bangalore City’ Improvement Trust Board/EDA, _j_t;i3.e
petitioners wanted to prove the same and filed an_.a1,plication«.Aunderp
Order XXVI Rule 9 of C P C for appointrnentépojf C’
make a local inspection and giveV,a_preport._a’s to wiiether the “suit;
schedule property exists in the 51” ‘P whether
the boundaries, as rnentioned:i1’i._ the’A._s.cvhedule,– correct ? But
the trial Court erred in rejecting the decision
reported in ILR 2007} It is further
submitted that the dispute can be
resolved and:’therefoiTe_vltliatlthel order may be set aside and
the application«(l.A.VIi}V:Qrder XXVI Rule 9 of C P C may
be allowed. _
3..»Vli:~is that after the evidence of the plaintiff was
r..pAoQmpleted,l’the application for appointment of Commissioner came to
Tobe ‘ filed by the ‘petitioners / defendants.
__ burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is the absolute
the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances,
Lu
W PNo.26l4//2010
there was no good ground for the petitioners/ defendants tollfile an
application for appointment of a Commissioner. The Ilias
rejected the application for appointment of a
liberty to the petitioners to file such an application id.
of the trial. However, the trial Court canlconsider .¢;pp’1i¢ation} if
such an occasion is warranted. ‘I’i’1er”e_i’s. no i1legal’ity? ofginfinnity in
the impugned order.
5. In the resulnpjpthe ’tile same is hereby
dismissed.
Bjs’ A