Karnataka High Court
WP/27943/2023 of SMT RAJESHWARI Vs SMT RATHNAMMA P on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010658852023 NC: 2026:KHC:47868 WP No. 27943 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 27943 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O N.K. KODANDARAMU, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 27943 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJESHWARI
W/O N.K. KODANDARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT GROUND FLOOR, D. NO. 1888
WESLEY ROAD, TILAK NAGA
MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORU - 570 001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIKAR KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SAMPATH A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RATHNAMMA P,
W/O LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO. 813,
OPP: CHIRATHE KHANE GARALI
KUMABARAGERI, BHEIND MYSORE,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
GANDHI SQUARE, MYSORU - 570 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. Y.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER
Digitally signed
by
ANNAPURNA G
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
DATED 07/10/2023 PASSED ON IA NO. 16 FILED UNDER
ORDER XXVI RULE 4(a) READ WITH ORDER XVIII RULE 19 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE PETITIONER / DEFENDANT
IN OS NO. 1589/2013 WHICH CAME TO BE REJECTED BY THE
LEARNED 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE, COPY
AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
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
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.10.2023 passed on I.A.No.16 in O.S.No.1589/2013 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short).
2. Heard Sri Srikar Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sampath A., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
HC-KAR
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1589/2013 seeking the relief of possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed a detailed written statement. The parties have adduced their evidence. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application seeking permission to adduce further evidence, which came to be allowed. Subsequently, the defendant filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 4A read with Order XVIII Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to record the evidence of the witness at his residence.
4. The trial Court, vide order dated 07.10.2023, rejected the said application, recording the reason that the medical records produced by the defendant do not indicate that the doctor had advised the witness to take bed rest.
5. A perusal of the averments made in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit as well as the medical records produced by the defendant indicates that the witness is
HC-KAR
aged about 82 years and is suffering from osteoarthritis of both knees causing pain. The medical records further indicate that the said witness is unable to walk due to osteoarthritis of both knees.
6. Considering the aforesaid medical records and the averments made in the affidavit, I am of the view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in denying an opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence by recording the evidence at the residence of the witness through Court Commissioner. The ends of justice demand that the application be allowed by permitting the defendant to examine the witness by appointing a Court Commissioner to record the evidence.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed on I.A.No.16 in O.S.No.1589/2013
HC-KAR
by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, I.A.No.16 under Order XXVI Rule 4A read with Order XVIII Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner is allowed. iv) The trial Court is directed to appoint a Court Commissioner as sought in the application. v) The trial Court shall fix a timeline for the Court Commissioner to record the evidence. vi) The petitioner shall pay the fee and expense of the Court Commissioner as fixed by the trial Court. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40