S V MANJUNATHA Vs. NAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.292/04 seeking for declaration and consequential reliefs. The petitioner No.2 filed O.S.No.293/04 against the very defendant seeking for declaration and consequential reliefs. Both the suits were clubbed. I.A.No.15 was filed by the petitioner No.2 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for appointment of a Commissioner. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the same. Hence, the present petitions.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there are disputed questions of fact so far as boundaries are concerned. That even so far as documents are concerned, there is no clarity. Hence, appointment of a Commissioner is necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit.

(3.) THE trial Court while rejecting the application, on considering the material on record, was of the view that the available evidence is sufficient to settle the dispute between the parties. THEre is no need to appoint a Court Commissioner to note the boundaries of the suit properties and other properties. Hence, the application was rejected.