WP 12166/2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'I3LE: MR.JUS'I'ICE B.S.PA'I'IL_ I
BETWEEN:
3121 VENKATASWAMY,
s/0 VENKATARMMNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT BEERAMANAHALLI .
V§LLAGE,KASABA HOBLI, . "
KOLAR TALUK AND DIST. '- ~ = L *..}.F:'E'!'£'rIoNER
(BY SR1 V.S.HEGDE FOR M;§:s;'1«:EsjvY' amp'. "
AND:
1. PILLAMf4'«»5; '
w/o LATE..GOPALAPPA; _
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARE3,
AGRIcLILf1'UR;":.~:'r.' ' ~ *
J 2;- .3. N;eL1éA=mNAswAh&*I; """ " 'V
. ,S'iOL:m«:.;;QPA1.APPA,
' _ AGRICU i:'§'URI'ST;'
"MA-J._QR." -V . __ V V "
BC)"i"«H 1 ,£s'2 A~1éE RESIDING
3 AT BEERAMANAHALL1 VILLAGE.
HOBLI,
" .,Ko1,gg TALUK 85 DIST. ..RESPONI)ENTS
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF' THE
j'14c:c-m"s'z*1':'z1'z':o1~: OF' INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER 131'.
_ 33.8.08, PASSED on IA.V FILED UNDER ORDER 25 RULE 9 CFC, IN
OS.NO.188/05, ON THE FILE 0;? I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (dR.DN.}, AT
KQLAR, VIBE ANN--A, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE ABOVE
SA§D AP?LICA'§'¥C)N.
warr pmrrron xo.1g156(2oos (Gn,E.:§§"_l?.$;1'~.'.T{j:' T J
WP 1216612008
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Order passed on {A no.5 filed by the
herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPU
appointment of Commissioner to ..vt’j3.e
property, is chanenged in this petttion;~ ‘1
2. The court below has dismjeéeu me appztiéatidn hokling
that there was suficient the dispute between
the parties and that appoi-..’v”.ih®e’m_AA :gf’1.”C3pr;xin;tié.sioner was not
necessary. It the application was
filed Iongiavntter the stage of finaiity and the
matter wasttfijied The court has further observed
that ‘the. _V7finds’V’ thet materials on record were not
at a conclusion, then the court will appoint
Count elucidate the details. Subject to the said
2 obser’eatio3:1s,. application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC
‘ é 1 i” —
Counsel for the petitioner during the course of
‘axgtztments points out that the court beiow has proceeded to
“cost the matter for judgment even without hearing the
it’
WP 12166/2008
arguments, as the defenaianbpetitioner was pmsecufigg this
writ petition before this Court.
4. While I do not find aey error of
apparent on the face of the moon} T
court below, I need to observe that if
and the matter is posted ibr judgreent
opporttmity to advance his’ ‘was Aef)’en’Vv4t’or him to
request the court below of being
heard. However, jthe fiefifioner is at liberty
to urge the against the order under
chaI1eng«eV,”i’1Vi t1’§e;’.a_itpi$:?é} {o=1§e pxefeiied by him in case he fails
inthe sI1i{.¢ Q A
V 5. fo ‘the e’bseiva1:ions made above, this writ petition
sal-
‘judge