W. ? |4A4A
.L
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
BEFORE T
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTIcE B.S. PATTI. iii. 'I.
W.1>.No.3s517/2o10{GM+cpe;1 H it 1
BETWEEN: I ' it t it it
Sfi K. Narasimhan,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o late IV£.Kumbaya Shetty,
R/o Property No.2, v '_ 5
Door No.11, D.No.1 Street} ~ '
Anjaneya Temple Street, 1 1 1 _
Halasuru, Bangalor'e--O8. « " EETITIONER
[By Sri K. _
AND:
1. SriVeV1'._1," , _
Aged about 85 years,' _ "
S/o T.R.G0pa1.V '
_____
' a1jot_1't*3.0 year
"Re'sponde'rits11=1 & 2 are
Rgfat No;9_,fSubayya Reddy Road,
1 Ha1sz11r,,Banga1ore--08, and
A presently residing at No.12,
.. AA11j.aneya Temple Street.
" =1~ia_1.sur, Banga1ore--08. RESPONDENTS
_' This vwit petition is fiied under Articles 226 and 227 of
",the Constitution of India praying to quash/set aside the orders
~~ dated 9.11.10 passed on LA No.15 in o.s.2915/2002 by the
cg-
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, vide Annexure--J
and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court made the fo1lowing:--
ORDER
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejectionlof
I.A.No.15 filed seeking appointment hoof
hold inspection with regard to’lt.he~…a1lege’dV_encgroach,i’i1ent’°madeVit
by the defendant ~«~ respondent herein_over the ‘suit schedule
property and the construction in the suit ‘B’
schedule property_a1legedly’i’n llhuilding plan and
the license.
2. application holding that
earlier, inlthgé’ Commissioner was appointed
and he has fihilledllliisvreport. The Court below has further
V. waswsulficient material placed before it by way
of by the plaintiff and the defendants with
regar-ddto_’i~Lhe:2’al.1eged encroachment and the construction put
up, hen.ce_,l:’there was no ground made out for appointment of a
“-4%so”urt_:Commissioner.
3
3. This order cannot be characterised as one suffering from
patent illegality or error of jurisdiction so as to warrant
interference in the writ jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
evidence placed before the Court below will
help the plaintiff to establish the aiieged2’¢né:~oae1j:;1§uf
appointment of a Court Comtrpissionerj in f’this.__””regard is.’
absolutely essential. ffhis not .b_;; justified in
examining the evidence onfrecolrd conclusion as to
whether the sameis suffiicientitlo and reasonable
conclusion zjncroialchment made by the
defendants and ti’-also uitli the relief of mandatory
injunction sought.” saine”has’to be done by the Trial Court.
5. Since the Trial, Cot1rt– “has opined that sufficient material
was .VjdealAAixrith…tiie said aspect of encroachment, suffice
fgto .observefthavt–will be open to the petitioner to take up all the
grounds has urged in this writ petition in the appeal to
fbe presentedyby him. in case he fails in the suit. Reserving such
it jlibertyn, this writ petition is dismissed.
sali
‘iucige