Abdul Gaffer vs K. Santhosh

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jun 30, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1726715

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1726715
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: M.Nagaprasanna
Decided On: Jun 30, 2025
Case Number: WP/17921/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Gaffer

Respondent

K. Santhosh

Excerpt

.....session judge bangalore vide anxe as illegal and there by allow the application of petition and etc., this petition, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, order was made therein as under: coram: hon'ble mr justice m.nagaprasannaoral orderheard sri. narendra gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, sri. m.g. sateesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.2. the petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 02.06.2025, by which, the concerned court rejects the application filed by the petitioner underorder xxvi rule 9 of the cpc seeking appointment of a courtcommissioner to measure and identify the property in o.s.no.8743/2013. -3-3. the petitioner is the plaintiff. the suit is for injunction against the respondent-defendants. it is of the year2013. at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner-plaintiff files anapplication under order xxvi rule 9 of the cpc seeking appointment of a court commissioner to measure or identify the property that he himself is in possession of. the concerned court, has by cogent reasons, rejected the application on the score that the suit is for injunction and it is for plaintiff to prove that he is in possession of the property and not by appointing the court commissioner to fetch evidence for the plaintiff.4. in the light of the reasons obtaining in theimpugned order being cogent, i do not find any warrant to interfere in exercise of my jurisdiction under article 227 of constitution of india. the petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed. sd/- (m.nagaprasanna) judge rv list no.: 2 sl no.: 24 ct: bhk

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17921 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: ABDUL GAFFER S/O ABDUL SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF H.M.T. ENTERPRISES, AT NO. 152, ARCOT SRINIVASACHAR STREET, WARD NO. 29, COTTONPET, BANGALORE - 560 053. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K. SANTHOSH,
S/O N. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed R/AT NO. 232, 2ND BLOCK, by NAGAVENI Location: High 3RD STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, Court of BANGALORE - 560 079. Karnataka
2. MANIARASU M PE,
S/O LATE T.R. MUTTUSELVAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1147/D, 1-2, 18TH B MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.G. SATEESHA, ADVOCATE) -2- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER DATED 2.06.2025 REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/O

26 RULE 9 OF CPC IN OS NO. 8743/2013 PASSED BY THE XXIV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BANGALORE VIDE ANXE AS ILLEGAL AND THERE BY ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Narendra Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.G. Sateesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 02.06.2025, by which, the concerned Court rejects the application filed by the petitioner under

Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC seeking appointment of a Court

Commissioner to measure and identify the property in O.S.No.8743/2013. -3-

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit is for injunction against the respondent-defendants. It is of the year

2013. At the fag end of the trial, the petitioner-plaintiff files an

application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure or identify the property that he himself is in possession of. The concerned Court, has by cogent reasons, rejected the application on the score that the suit is for injunction and it is for plaintiff to prove that he is in possession of the property and not by appointing the Court Commissioner to fetch evidence for the plaintiff.

4. In the light of the reasons obtaining in the

impugned order being cogent, I do not find any warrant to interfere in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE rv List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2025 Same Parties Abdul Gaffer vs K. Santhosh Same Judge M.Nagaprasanna