IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.46677 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
C.YESHODAMMA, W/O RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN-573 135.
(THE PETITIONER DOES NOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SMT. KALAMMA, W/O. LATE BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2 . SRI. BASAVARAJU, S/O. LATE BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O. MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI-573 131, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK.
3 . SRI. KENGAIAH, S/O. LATE DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 4 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. KENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 5 . SRI. MAHALINGAIAH, S/O. KENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 6 . SRI. SREEDHAR, S/O. KENGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPODNENT NO.3 TO 6 ARE R/O. APPENAHALLI VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI – 573 111, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 135.
7 . SRI. GANESH, S/O. PUTTASWAMYGOWDA R/O. VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI – 573 131, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 135.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.64/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHANNARAYAPATNA; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.64/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHANNARAYAPANA VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA FILED U/O 26 RULE 9 R/W ORDER 26 RULE 10A OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in a declaration suit in O.S.No.64/2014, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 26.07.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, whereby, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna, having favoured respondent-plaintiffs’ application in I.A.No.14 filed under Order XXVI Rules 9 & 10 has as referred the subject agreement of sale dated 22.05.1990 i.e., Ex.P.4 for forensic examination.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, the impugned order cannot be faltered inasmuch as the petitioner being the defendant in his Written Statement has specifically taken up a contention that the subject agreement is concocted one.
3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even otherwise the exercise now sought to be undertaken in terms of impugned order, would not move the suit even an inch, is bit difficult to countenance at this stage. The order appointing the Commissioner is a product of exercise of discretion and further the challenge thereto is preposterous inasmuch as report to be submitted may turn out to be in favour of the petitioner as well. This apart, petitioner will have an opportunity of objecting to the report if and when it is made adverse to his interest.
In the above circumstances, there is no sufficient factual and legal substratum warranting indulgence of writ court in its limited supervisory power vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off, all the contentions of the parties having been kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE DS