Karnataka High Court
WP/20589/2026 of NAGARAJU Vs NETHRAMMA on 12 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010451292026 NC: 2026:KHC:42847 WP No. 20589 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20589 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: NAGARAJU S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 20589 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJU
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHOWLIHALLI VILLAGE,
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHASHI BHUSHAN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
NETHRAMMA
W/O REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HALENAHALLI,
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217
2.
JYOTHI,
W/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT B.HOSAHALLI,
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217
3.
SHANKAR
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT B.HOSAHALLI,
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217
4.
ARUN KUMAR
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT B.HOSAHALLI,
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217
5.
SHIVANANDA
S/O SHASHIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHIKKAPURA VILLAGE,
MAYASANDRA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 221
6.
DAYANANDA
S/O SHASHIDHARA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHIKKAPURA VILLAGE,
MAYASANDRA HOBLI,
7.
PUSHPAVATHI,
W/O PARAMESHWARA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOSA IYNAR HUNDI,
TALAKADU HOBLI,
KOLLEGALA TALUK - 571 440
8.
SWARNAGOWRAMMA,
W/O OMKARAMURTHY,
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHOWLIHALLI VILLAGE,
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217
9.
INDRAMMA,
W/O JAGADEESH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHOWLIHALLI VILLAGE,
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217
10.
VEERENDRASWAMY,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHOWLIHALLI VILLAGE,
HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217
11.
KAMALAKSHI,
W/O PRASHANTH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AMMASANDRA,
DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI,
12.
MEENAKSHI
W/O UDAYASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.34,
NEAR POST OFFICE,
ARASEKERE,
ARASEKERE TALUK - 573 103
…RESPONDENTS
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION OF
APPROPRIATE NATURE BY QUASHING THE ORDER (ANNEXURE-
K) DATED 04.06.2026 PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.2/2021 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, AS THE
ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THIS
HONORABLE COURT MAY KINDLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 1 TO RESPONDENT NO 7
UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(B) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC (I.E
I.A NO.5) ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
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
The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 04.06.2026 passed in FDP No.2/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. By the order impugned, the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No.5 filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(B) of the CPC and appointed the ADLR attached to the Tahsildar's Office, Tiptur, as the Court Commissioner. He is at liberty to take assistance
HC-KAR
of the Surveyor attached to his office for the purpose of conducting the survey.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has raised an objection to the appointment of the Court Commissioner, as the boundaries of some of the properties are not properly mentioned. In the absence of proper boundaries, the question of conducting a survey would not arise. It is submitted that all these objections have not been considered by the trial Court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order passed by the trial Court, as well as the objections filed by him. The petitioner has merely contended that the boundaries are not mentioned. There is a preliminary decree that has attained finality, and the final decree proceedings are going on. If the Commissioner is appointed and a survey is conducted, it is in the interest of all the parties. If the petitioner has any objection to the same, he can always file his objections. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court.
HC-KAR
5. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his objections, if any, to the Commissioner’s report before the Court. ii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12