BHIMAPPA RAYAPPA CHOUGALA Vs. SHRIKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, appointing a Commissioner to submit a report regarding encroachment if any. This application is filed by the plaintiffs when the case was set down for evidence. The defendants challenging the said order contends that even before commencement of the proceedings, the Commissioner is appointed. If that is permitted, it amounts to collecting evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The suit is one for possession and injunction. The plaintiffs claim, the defendants have encroached upon their property. Only if the plaintiffs are able to show that the defendants have encroached upon their property, they would be entitled to the relief. Any amount of oral evidence is not a substitute or sufficient to prove the encroachment. To cut short the litigation to reduce recording evidence, the trial Court in its wisdom, thought it fit to appoint a commissioner even before the commencement of the trial. That is how the duration of the litigation could be curtailed and speedy disposal of the civil matter could be achieved. In that view of the matter, I do not see any substance in this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.