iN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA:'_f"" * 1' % %
C.iRCUI'I' BENCH AT I)PiARWA_D--~
DATED THIS THE «am DAY QF A.I.ir;f;j:U=.:{r,' }2 or5"9-- V. 'A: J T
BEFORE" V' V V
THE I~i0N'BLE MRJUSTICE §AE';:%1_"AN_ sHAm'Ar€AdQUDAR
wan' PE'I'I'I'ION (G191?-'CPC}
BETWEEN:
VITFAL NARAYA'm5%:iKu1§;{Amé~i
s/0 Km.;KA--Rr¢§ _ _ --.
AGED ABGLI'F'?¥':} YEARS . _
MEDICAL r>4RAcr1'rxQNJE:,R~T.%. " _
R/AT BALEKLZNDRI TALUK "
BELGAUM ::.s._IsrRIC_I' " ...PE'I'ITIONER
V. '_ (B¥_»»:£M:r_;'*mvDYA"v.1:f§)R:_-312: BLRAGHAVENDRA RAD, ADvs.,)
' SRVi.'§5H§2"§i~ia.3§{2 sséitfvaai SAMBREKAR
SIRQE 9351;; BY HIS LR'S
gm'. PRABHAVATHI
wjo SHIVAJI SAMBREKLAR
' . " "j_«MA,.1-GR
2 .; SR} SHEVAJI
A/C) KRISHNAJI SAMBREKAR
Mfi».1()R
. 'i?()LLO\V'1fN(}:~.'_
3. KUMARIMADHU
D/0E§HW&HSAMBREKAR WW m
MAJOR I
4. SREPRADEEP _
s/0 SHIVAJI SAMBREKAR'
MAJOR "
RESPONDENTS 1'fm_ 4 5;
R/A NO. 1456, BASAWAHGALLI'"'-- AA *
BELGAUM t . =.j;,..._I~:.EsPoNDEN'rs
(BY SR1 Al5'?{,_'~ RI-3 )
THIS iP§%:'i5r*rikJr§i..__IS"i?i:;E:) 'i:rE.:2 ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF ':'H.1§«'."»-. GRBER FOUND AT ANN-G
PASSEZ) BY "I;EARH_ED ; 181' ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.nN)"'BELG1wM«jean'-1,5;-.;stQ.21 DATED 8/4] 2009 IN 0.3.
NO.S92/O1, ALLO'-N *:*H:$ wmr PEFITION wrm cos'rs.
;-'mjs :5111fI*:*ii:)N COMING cm FOR PRELIMINARY
I~}E_s_'§i'~éE1'~l(} V 1m55...VmY, THE comm' MADE THE
ORDER
order, the Court below has allowed
‘vthe afzpiicatien far appeinfanent of Commissioner.
H 2. The defendant No.4 before the trial Court has
” .’Vq’i1esfioned the said’ order on the pound that the
P»
appoinhnent of an engineer as a Cauizsgtigissieiacr is
totally unnecessary ; that the
plaintifis on 18.1.2003 for appogntnaéntiaf the.V.cit,§rV”si1;v.¢yox’ _
as the Commissioner is by on
the very day LA. No.21′ ithéfiievicience
which is a11o°wt:dV by the counsel
for the passed by the
not find any f:I’I0l1″ in the
impugned didgérsifiastnuéh as the same does not prejudice
V’ _ The having felt that the appointment of
Li is necessary to set at rest the disputs betwezcn
j_ real dispute between the parts” s appears to
be u”£i:.ei’}::;c.a.ii:ion. of samadhi, which is the suit property. The
2 V. Adsfsiiésnts call the samadhi as a temple. Be that as it may,
the suit property falls Within C’I’S No-.1456 or 14357
i ” * has to be detexmined by the Commissioner. By the said
process dispute betwema the parties will be resolved once
PB
and far all . Therefore, this Court dggiines u ” =
the impugned order. Peiifion i:s.=~: AA
dismissed.
BNS