BASAPPA HONGAL Vs. NINGARADDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This top noted writ petition is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order of the Court below passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.33/2018.

(2.) The facts leading to this top noted writ petition are as under: The present petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming title over the open space attached to VPC No.652. It is the case of the petitioner that suit properties are ancestral properties and he is in exclusive possession for the last 30 years. It is further contended that he is using the said space to have excess to Achamatti to Konnur. The petitioner averred in the plaint that respondents/defendants are disputing the existence of this open space though they have no semblance of right, title over the suit property. On receipt of summons respondents/defendants filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants have filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to appoint Court Commissioner to measure the property of the plaintiff as per the records of the plaintiff and submit a report. The said application was objected by the plaintiff. However, at the time of hearing on I.A.No.5, the plaintiff submitted no objection to allow the application. The Court taking note of the said no objection has summarily allowed the application without assigning any reason.

(3.) In this background, if the grounds urged in the writ petition are taken note of, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged in the present writ petition cannot be considered since the petitioner has conceded for allowing the application and has accepted to have a local inspection to measure the suit property. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmity and would not warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.