MUNISHAMAPPA, S/O. SRI KADIRAPPA @ YERRAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O. SRI NARAYANAPPA, SRI SARADAR S/O. SRI PATHESAB AND SRI ANJANAPPA S/O. LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS /Plaintiffs filed I.A.7 under Order 26 Rule 9 Code of Code of Civil Procedure to appoint the Taluka Surveyor as Court Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to submit the report. The 1st Defendant filed statement of objections to I.A.7. The other Defendants filed a memo adopting the statement of objections filed by the 1st Defendant. The Trial Court upon consideration of I.A.7, finding the same to be devoid of merit, has passed an order of dismissal dated 21.10.2010. Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs have filed this writ petition.

(2.) SRI K. Abhinav Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a need for appointment of Court Commissioner to elucidate the matter since there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the property. Learned Counsel contends that, the Trial Court has not considered I.A.7 in the correct perspective.

(3.) KEEPING in view the rival contentions and record, which I have perused, the point for consideration is: whether dismissal of I.A.7 is irrational?