DODDEGOWDA Vs. CHIKKANNACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that in the suit for injunction simplictor, an appointment of Commissioner was wrong, apart from the fact that Parties cannot be to allowed to collect evidence by seeking such appointment. It appears, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of Court Commissioner at the initial stage of the suit and that application was rejected on the ground that the Parties will have to adduce evidence to prove their case and the application for appointment of Court Commissioner at that stage was not maintainable. Thereafter, both the Parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary. Having regard to the evidence, learned Judge seems to have allowed the application holding that appointment of Court Commissioner is necessary. In view thereof, I do not find any illegality in the order warranting interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. That apart, it is always open to the Parties to file objection to the Court Commissioner's report and also seek examination of the Court Commissioner, if necessary. Having regard to the rights of the Parties and the power of the Court to appoint Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.