High Court Karnataka High Court

G.Vijaya W/O V.M.Raju vs T.S.Devika on 8 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
G.Vijaya W/O V.M.Raju vs T.S.Devika on 8 July, 2009
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH coma' OF KARNATAKA AT BANC%..A.:l',A&:T'$I_''<f:';§37 " 
DATED THE 3TH DAY OF JULY.V2('3'f.):'3      T   

BEFoREssg.dj%h_%
THE HON'BLE MR.JTJST1CE   d'  %
wnrr PETITION No.  L   d d
BETWEEN: s     

Gllijaya,    i 
W'/'0 V.M.Raju,  ab0iiii"4Q  
No. 144, Govirldmf'  'C,oi"!1D¢'Jund}'   As 

Banashankaifii M:.é;i_:n  
V ....   d     ...Pctitioncr

 2 '  Advocate)
AND:    d

 s Siddalingcgowda,
, 23 years.

 ._  @ Siddalingcgowda,
'  55 years.

 Both I'/a Banashankari Nagara,
* .Ba.r13'.shankari Main Road,

I . . Respondents

‘T Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

_’4_4’4§’?onstitution of India praying to quash AI]I’I€X11I’¢:”:-A dated

30.5.2009 passed in 0.S.No.144/2004 on the_.Afflelof’the je.01:art
ofll Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) 8sJ.M.F’.C., .

This petition coming on for tiomst

day, the court made the following

The [)etitioner–131&*;Erltlt’f’ has the quagnmg of the
order dated 30.5.2009 the Court of I!
Add}, Judge::.l§J_r.Dh.) on the 1.1%.,
filed under?” 9′? of the C.P.C., in

2. ‘Il’he:_lfaotS”–of in brief are that the petrffioner

__filed suit the relief of mandatory injunction

ff’-S_p011dents~defendants to remove the illegal

on the rival pleadings, issues came to be

t A % the sides have completed their side of

. When the matter is set down for arguments, the

filed the LA. for appointment of the Court

“-«Coitimissioner for measuring and demaxeatmg the suit

echedule property elucidating that the respondents have

made any encroachment in the suit schedule This

LA. was dismissed by the Trial Court, by

30.5.2009.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, ‘wfi:iipeseottiissse1′

Shri Ponnappa, the learned fora’;

submits that the Court i_ to be
appointed for n1easm’iIig.’the ‘isuij property and for

ascertaining that have made the

encroachinente submits that as the

argurnents on Qijziatter have not yet commenced,

there A59, no in appointing the Court

. 1ii%;gavejg;oi1c through the LA. and the aflidavit med in

V its petitioner does not account for the delay in

thisapplieation. It is filed at a late stage. That apart, if

Commissioner is called upon to ascertain whether

‘ A ” is any encroa’ chment, it amounts to Court’s power being

given to the Court Commissioner. Further, the Court

HEM.