M.D. BETTEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 19 -10 -2013, passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 133/2010 on I.A. No. 7 vide Annexure -A. By the impugned order at Annexure -A, the trial court has rejected I.A. 7 filed by the petitioner for appointment of the court Commissioner.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the trial court has erred while rejecting I.A. No. 7. Further he submitted that in the circumstances of the case appointment of Court Commissioner was necessary to demarcate the suit schedule properties and to find out whether they are commonly bounded and who is in possession. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.