K. R. CHOWDARY Vs. B. GURAPPA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the writ appeal is preferred against an interim order dtd. 18/4/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge and as admittedly, all the parties are represented by their respective learned counsel, we deem it appropriate to permit the parties to raise their respective contentions in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

(2.) At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants invited our attention to clause (4) of the impugned order dtd. 18/4/2023 whereby, the learned Single Judge has directed the Authorities of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to carry out inspection of the premises and measurement of the property in question. He submits that the appellants are not raising any objection for the same, but their objection is with regard to further part of the direction that inspection shall be carried out in presence of respondent No.1 (petitioner in the writ petition) or his representative. He submits that grant of such permission to respondent No.1 would expand the scope of the interim direction and it will affect the privacy of the appellants. He further submits that respondent No.1 shall not be permitted to participate in the exercise of inspection to be carried out by the BBMP, instead, the inspection may be carried out in presence of a third party such as, a Court Commissioner.

(3.) Admittedly, there were certain options before the writ Court and the learned Single Judge thought it fit to direct the BBMP to carry out a fresh inspection of the premises. In our opinion, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is a fair submission and if a direction is issued to the BBMP to carry out inspection of the premises in presence of a Court Commissioner, it would not cause any prejudice to the contesting parties.