KARIYAPPA Vs. NINGAWWA DANAPPAGOUDA TOTAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 17/1/2023 passed in O.S. No. 114/2007 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC was allowed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record including the impugned order.

(3.) The material on record discloses that the respondents No.1 to 4-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration, injunction and other releifs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit the petitioners were arrayed as defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 while the respondents No.5 and 6 were arrayed as defendants No.3 and 5 and they are contesting the suit. In the first instance, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dtd. 7/12/2023, aggrieved by which the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 1/2014 which was allowed vide judgment and decree dtd. 18/6/2022 whereby the first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law. It is relevant to note that while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the first appellate Court allowed the application I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to adduce additional evidence. After remand, the plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking appointment of Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection. The said application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court proceeded to pass the order allowing the application aggrieved by which the present writ petition is filed.