High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri H Ishwar vs Smt Vijaya Laxmi Rao on 15 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri H Ishwar vs Smt Vijaya Laxmi Rao on 15 December, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
WP 1 5862{2008

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1573 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008
BEFORE-

THE HOIWBLE MR'.JUS'I'ICE B.S.PATIL....__ 'V 

wan' PETITIOII Noassegzzoos (est!/K:'t31§V'~V.: '"    H

BETWEEN:

SR1 HJSHWAR,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

sfo LATE SUBBANNA,

SANTHYARA HOUSE, ,V 
PADANGADY VILLAGE AND POST,   ,_    
BELTHANGADY TALUK. 7    -  1 " .{P'E'I'I'1'IONER
(BY SR1 K.SHASHIKAN'I'H PRASAD, ;'s.:f)\s'.} _

AND:

SMT. VIJAYA: LAXME. R'-AO,_  ..
AGED ABGUT46 *1'-EARS,   
w/o ANAN£}gRAO,   ' 
SANTHYARA HOUSE, 
PADANGADY wLm{3E',

 . gELT»1~£xNQADVY TALUISZ .... \' » ..RESPONDENT

'  "*:'1~«11"£3f PE}'i'ITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 227 OF'

  OF ENDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORBER DT.

4--.---12v..*2.o{)s.. fPASS13)!}v*'BY THE COURT OF' CIVIL JUDGE (.JR.DN.),
BEi~THANGAD Y  DISMISSING THE APPOINTMENT OF
COMMISSIONEE3: APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.5 UNDER ODER 26 RULE 9

 'AND "SEC'.I'ION 151 CPC IN O.S.NO.190/2002 WHICH WAS
 '?RODUCED¥ AS ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED
_ " "THif?«__ WRIT PETITEON BY ALLOWING} I.A.NG.6 FILED IN
V'  "O".S,NC');l90/2002.

THIS PETHTIQN COMING ON FOR' PRELIMINARY HEARENG,

%  f *m:§s ma', THE comm' MADE THE FOLLOWING;



WP 13862 [2008
2
ORDER

1. Prayer made by the petincner who is the defendant before

the court below seeking appointment of Court Comnliseionevr to

conduct local inspection of the suit schedule

re]-’10I’t the same is Ifijected by the <20'-_c1¥.".t.. bf:10"v?é" " = 'V

2. The court below has held tieitigjionielifotj

injunction, if the defendant’ ‘ but

Commission for local inspection’-.,:an(i the
location and existence it will amount to

permitting him to .coI}ectAc*v’itl.<§nce,' has further

found that ofjCour;1; Commissioner was not
necessaxj having the facts. and circumstances of

the case. _ In of the court below, the application was

imadue defendnntl at the stage of final arguments only to

delaylltnefpxneeeylings.

_ 4 3. A do not Afind any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the

“‘~._l:orjder by the court below to warxant tinterfenence in the

_ “wrsi._iu::iseiceon.

Hence, this writ petition being devoid of merits is

” V dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to urge

WP 1586.’2{200-3

necessary grounds in, the appeal in this regard, in ease’.-fhe

judgment in the suit goes against him.