-1- W.P.N(}.2326/2008 IN' THE HIGH 0033.1' 01''' KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE l3ATED THIS THE 1773 DAY OF KARO}! 3008 3EFORE ms aozrnm mm. JUSTICE H. G. V ' %
WRIT PETYPION N0.g:3.g6 OF figfioa Q xi
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ
S] G MUMSWAMAPPA
AGES 55 YEARS
R/0 KAVALBYRASANDRA \siL~:..§a<3':3:" " -: .
KASABA HOBLE . .
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK .
BANGALORE — 32 . ‘
(BY SR1 K K ‘r1«iA¥g5m)i§;a:.é§;V:s.fiV) ”
1 PAPANNA URuFVMu_Nis__WAMAFPA
s/0 LA-‘i’E%MoTAPPg . V
AGED ?S”YEAR8’-_ 1
i<;AVALBYRA»SANI)RA'
,;&<:ASAB.«_ HOBLE « ….. .. »
A A 'BAN–GAL0RE NORTH TALUK.
" ~ BANGAL0R'E .,
2 r R'NAG§3S.H";=V"
‘ S,/O 1?Ai\ri£i§§NA,MAJOE2
/Ov«._’KA’a’ALBYRASANDRA
, R.T.NA_eAR POST
n T EEANGALORE -32
V’ – ._c§oViN13ARA.:U
Si O VENAKTESH
MAJOR
R] O IJODBASALAPPA COMPOUND
KAVALBYRASANIDRA
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE – 32
._ ,v,A’.’f?E’i;ITIONER
W.P.NO.2326/2008
4 PRASANNA KUMAR
S] O MU NIYAPPA
MAJOR
R} O DODDASALAPPA COMPOUND
KAVAL BY RASANDRA
R.’§’.B¥AGAR POST
BANGALORE -~ 32 …REsPo’:§DE§i?éS’ A ‘-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED URQER Am*io’L§s 2926 8;.
227 OF’ THE CONSFITUTION OF’ INDIIK PR3{‘f?N’Cr TC. vQU_ASH” I .
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I«iC)N’BLE’.:XIV’4F&,¥,?D¥TIO’NAL 1; ‘
CIVIL COURT, BANGALORE ON I.A.NOV.i{}._ IN O;S.4848/9,_1’~..V ”
DATED 11.1.2008.
THIS WRIT PE’FI’I’I€)N coM1’1¢g:”‘eN FOR. .FREL1L}i;NARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE coum’ Mgingfrnier, FoLLow;Ng:
012}; r.«5.;%1toeo _ ‘
This writ pe£:i1;_io11 directed
against an –.9_rder:@ 11.01.2008
(Armexufe-E)4′ Court ~— the Court of
the XIV Adiiitjoaaai’ Judge, Bangalore, in the
€h){S.I§o.?}8’48J._1991. By the impugned order,
aflowed the application —– I.A.No.13
filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC to
_ ‘appoixit .. Commissioner to make a local
of the suit property.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
$118 Iletitioner and peru We impugled order at
– 3 –
W’.P.NO.2326/2008
A11nex1me-1%). It is relevant to refer to the followixgg
reasoning of the trial Court in allowing the appHcati§riT’~w.VV
flied for appoinment of a Court Commissiencrg’
*2 The plazhtzfi” has filed thiasugt
the defendants for [sf
mmdatory ‘w’uncn’on and 1
respect ofsite bearing No; ‘
measuring East ta.’ Noi1i~.;am5
sicie:100 ft, and gums :4o:;;:;»,;érz;j.§ic:,e.vs7fi.,
and North tq scum i§.=ide.’65
12., and on ms? ‘We$?3ten::.v~S12iéf'”12»._f1,TfA 1: is the
fitrthery ‘é;3_{‘it}1,<?; that the
_ over
5" there is any
defendanw anly by
of can be said what is the
% hf encroachment by each of the
Whatever amount of oral
not help the Court in deciding
V the encroachment made by each of
AV , fhedéfendants. Therefore, it is necessary to
* local inspection and survey cf the suit
WV
– 4 –
W.P.NO.2826f2()O8
3. I have examined the matter in the light of the
principles iaid down by the I–Ion’ble Supreme Count
summ DEV RAI vls. mm cnamn.-:1:
2003 SC 3044) relating to exercise’ «of
under Articles 226 as 227 of the
pertamixag to interlocutory
subordinate to the
4. In my opinion, does not
suffer from ” er”‘eI1*or apparent
on the rgteetm” interference under
the of this Court under
Articles 226 at 2:27 _O.’f the ‘eensetueon of India.
W._ .’ ‘ n ,Pet.ifien. ‘dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge