KANALA NARASAMMA Vs. NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 4-12-1989 passed on LA. No, Nil in Original Suit No. 1344/1981 on the file of the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a qualified engineer as Court Commissioner for valuation of the properties shown in the plaint schedule.

(2.) The facts undisputed are : That the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent him to make use of a disputed passage in the suit schedule property. Later, the plaintiff has amended the plaint where she has sought for declaration, that the disputed passage form part of the suit property and it should be declared so. After allowing the said application, the plaint was amended and the Court-below while allowing the application gave an opportunity for the plaintiff to place materials in respect of additional Court-fee payable consequent to the amendment Accordingly, the matter was heard and the trial Court has ordered for the payment of additional Court-fee of Rs. 200/- which was paid on 27-3-1986.

(3.) There after, the case was proceeded for recording the evidence and after the conclusion of the evidence the matter was posted for arguments. However, the learned Advocates are at variance in the submission. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it was at the stage of cross-examination of DW-2. After a series of adjournments, the defendant filed the application on 25-3-1989 for appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose, already narrated above.