IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF March 2001

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.RANGAVITTALACHAR

CRP No 1169 OF 2001

BETWEEN

1. VENKATAPPA MAJOR, S/O.NARAYANAPPA VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TQ BANGALORE DIST., BY GPA HOLDER SRI.VENKATARAMAIAH, VIJAYAPURA DEVANAHALLI TQ, BLORE DIST.

.PETITIONER

(By Sri.S.CHENNARAYA REDDY, Adv. $\rightarrow$

AND:

• 1. V NARAYANAPPA S/O.VENKATASWAMAPPA MAJOR IN AGE, VIJAYAPAURA DEVANAHALLI TQ, BLORE DIST.
• 2. C RAJAPPA MAJOR IN AGE S/O.MUNIYAPPA R/OF SHETTAHALLI VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TQ, BLORE DIST.
• 3. CHIKKAMAUNIYAPPA MAJOR IN AGE S/O.LATE DEKAPPA R/OF SHETTAHALLI VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TQ, BLORE DIST.
• 4. MUNINARAYANA MAJOR IN AGE S/O.NARAYANAPPA R/OF.SHETTAHALLI VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TQ, BLORE DIST.

5. MUNIVENKATARAYAPPA MAJOR IN AGE S/O.RAMAPPA R/OF.SHETTAHALLI VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TQ; BLORE DIST.

$\mathcal{A}^{\mathcal{A}}$

...RESPONDENT(S)

THIS CRP FILED U/S.115 CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DT:22/2/2001 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.892/96 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O 26 R 9 CPC.

This C.R.P.is coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:

..ORDER

CRP 1169/2001

ORDER

This is a plaintiff's revision petition.

The first defendant to the suit had filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Commissioner note the existence of a pathway cum cart track $t_o$ on the eastern side from south to north, draw a sketch and to report. The trial Judge after enquiry on this application has allowed the same. He has stated that the existence of the pathway and its dimension is the subject matter of controversy between the parties and the report $of$ the Commissioner will effectively aid the court to come to a proper decision. I agree with the reasonings of the trial court in this regard. No ground for interference.

Sd/- JUDGE

Petition rejected.