'2 V' "I-3AN'GA'LC.)'RE~"550 045. """ " IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12"?" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20,1O_j'-..._,'O~.._ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. IUSTICE A.N. Jv,EATuGOPALA}_~sOIwD,A "II 2' WRIT PETITION NO.3141O/1201.39IGf;7T=:CPC') 7 BETWEEN: A GIRIDHARAN S/O LATE N D ABEDANANDAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ' _ _ I NO.35, POTTERY TOWN LAYOUT,' WILLIAMS TOWN EXTENSION," ' ' BANGALORE-56004'5.,_ ' PETITIONER (BY SR1 v.B.£:II1\f§Avs«;'U"ai2i§AR,"A.'II.\/;I). AND: DR. ARAI/_IAr~4,I ' _ , _ _. W/O K RAIENDRA PRASAD " " AGED ABOUTA9 IYEARS,z_ ' R/A NO.D--3, EsI..,Qu~ARTE'Rs, II H.055.) R, "WILLIAM*S. TOWN, RESPONDENT
I9T_;_aAc:I.;A’r&iATII, ADV.)
‘WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
x_AND 227}_OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2010 ON I.A. FILED UNDER
4 26 RULE 9 CPC IN O.S.NO.3538/2004 PASSED BY THE
D’ _ }{.I1’I=.ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PRODUCED
‘ ASZANNEXURE -A TO THIS WRIT PETITION.
[\.}
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘E’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWIN,G’:I.
QRDER
Petitioner has filed O.S.i\Eo.3538/20G4__,’Vegein_stI._the”T
respondent in the City Civil
appiication fifed under Order2_6 RuleJ9’v–CPC,Vto.e:p{5oiri:t.”a I
court commissioner to inspect”‘i’n»2i:.nd report’l’regar:d:ing the
violation of buifding pla:n*~».,_of ‘Vf’i’-rs_t.Iifi’oor portion of the
plaint schedule property and ‘IAthe__’.’.obstruction of
air, light, ventii’a’t;§o’i1 and :free”rno’\fem_ent in the ground
floor of the ‘I'{;:,rCJpI-erty having been
dismiss,edI,’VIp’|aintvifféties thisuirit petition.
2. counsel on both sides and
perused the vlvIr§t,,§_v)ét1iti0Vh record.
I The, suit filed by the petitioner is for permanent
iiijuhctiio’ri7an__d’V~Ito””restrain the defendant from viofating the
I . terrns o’f5:thve’: sanctioned plan dated 10.02.2004 and for
.,inantd_atdi-y injunction for demoiition of the structure, which
‘Ij_.o”bst’ruI’cts the free flow of air, light, ventilation and
I “movement in the ground floor portion. The respondent
lt
/j .
has filed O.S.l\lo.15192/2004. The suits having been
Consolidated, trial has taken place. After the comp§’eti’tilej–VeofA4
the trial, an application was filed by the
appointment of court Commissioner.’*'”T.he t’rialV’4c’ou’rtVwhile’,
passing the impugned order has
petitioner has not sought delc–i_ai>aVtorv'”re_|ief{AV§vh”é;ré’ais “the
suit of the defendant is ‘four decs|larateion”–»and iftlthe. defendant
has violated the plan, authority to
take action and 4th’e_r’e of court
commissioner violation of
the building by the defendant and
the plaintiff Vhasrto appeejenpaper forum for relief.
4. _–Sectio’r. empowers the court to issue
“Rule 9h”unVder Order 26 CPC provides
proce_d’ur_e’ifor-.._Acom.m_ji.ssion to make local investigation.
lv.Vl””-~Court can ap.p_oi;ht a commissioner to conduct local
~-l«l’.j’ijmtestigatiohfor the purpose of elucidating the matter in
/j’.
S. The plaintiff has alleged that, there___ is
obstruction of air, light, ventilation and free movefr::eln’,t–,,:i”ia,,
the ground floor of plaint schedule property,–,,’:a:”parl::’ ”
the violation of building plan of the.:firr’st,f|oorllpyortion.’ .ff{‘«he’.,. 2
parties have lead evidence. With”i’.regA_ard to
obstruction of air, light, ventilati.on and, i’reelv-._:m’ov’ement,
the report of a court commissigo-ne.r”,_:i–sl’ikely.to’ ‘aid the court
for just disposal of thellflsuit. court noticing the
prayer with regard.__to omitting from
consideration” regasrd to air, light,
passed the impugned
order. it i
6. In”thecircumstances, it would be necessary to
appoirjltly a teCHr’ilCV<".-ll person to conduct local inspection,
l'.i'I'l:"l':rté(\E _toA.,%f!nd..,out, whether there is obstruction of air,
Iig_hi:',._ve'nti'l_a.tion"and free movement in the ground floor of
V . the l'"plaint.sc'hedu|e property. Such a course of action
be necessary for elucidation of the matter in
d"isp'ute. The impugned order being otherwise, on account
t
/f'.
of the omission to consider the prayer in the correct
perspective and not noticing the real ques-tiionf._:i”nu
controversy between the parties, is irrational.
For the reasons stated supra,-the-writ’_4’pe_t.it:ion_
allowed and the impugned order sta1nVds..A. cl1fiashed}
The application filedV»’–tJi:§f”~«etheV. =.petitVi_”c;nVe’r»”V”‘dated
24.01.2008 stands allovtted in.~srp.sE[tc:a’r:d#% theétr’ial~Vcourt is
directed to take steps to siJi’itaibl’e–‘.__commissioner
for ascertaining . iventilation and
free of plaint schedule
property as alleged. inettle:’plaint/’application.
The trial court”to_tal<e»'into consideration the names
su"g'g.ested'}"iby_..the_ parAtVi'esv~-for appointment of commissioner
anhdato ass f'urthoeir.:order.
Cost: of_corn§..2’§iVssion shall be borne by the petitioner.
3d/3
Jud§3