Karnataka High Court
WP/26831/2026 of SMT.MUNIKADIRAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS MUNINARAYANAMMA Vs SMT.TIRUMALAMMA on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010584672026 NC: 2026:KHC:49273 WP No. 26831 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 26831 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.MUNIKADIRAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26831 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT.MUNIKADIRAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
MUNINARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O THIRUMALAPPA,
MUNIMANGALA VILLAGE,
AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125
2.
SMT MUNINARASAMMA
W/O. LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3.
MUNIRATHNA
D/O. LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
4.
NAGARATHNA
D/O. LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
5.
MUNIRAJU
S/O. LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/A NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN-CODE-5612070.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT.TIRUMALAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HE LRS
C.M.LAKSHMINARAYANA SWAMY
S/O LATE TITUMALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA
TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN-CODE-561207
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MURALIDHAR R, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 22.06.2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKABALLAPURA ON I.A.NO.30
IN OS NO. 323/2012 ANNX-F.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Raghavendra K., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Muralidhar R., learned counsel for the respondent-caveator.
2. The present petition impugns the order dated 22.06.2026, whereby the ADLR, Chikkaballapura, has been appointed as the Court Commissioner to ascertain the survey number of the property situated within the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P4 in O.S. No.323/2012.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is unsustainable for want of reasons and, in that view of the matter, is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, once the Court Commissioner submits the report, the petitioners will have an opportunity to file their objections to the same. In that view of the matter, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties.
HC-KAR
5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. The limited grievance raised in the present petition is that the trial Court has failed to assign reasons for appointing the Court Commissioner. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi And Ors in W.P. No.201274/2022, dated 24.01.2023, has held that the trial Court is empowered to exercise its discretionary power to appoint a Court Commissioner suo motu. However, in the present case, the Court Commissioner has been appointed on an application filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, interference with the impugned order is warranted only to the limited extent of setting aside the same for want of reasons. Hence, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Order dated 22.06.2026 is set aside.
(ii) The application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC is restored for reconsideration to the trial Court.
HC-KAR
(iii) The trial Court, while deciding the matter, shall take note of the principle of law laid down in the above referred judgment.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14