ANITHA DEV Vs. SUSHEELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff- Smt. Anitha Dev, W/o. late Dr. Ahamindra Dev has filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 03/01/2017 passed by the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.3391/2014 (Smt. Anitha Dev Vs. Smt. Susheela Bai and another).

(2.) By the impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has rejected the Application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 Read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for Appointment of a Commissioner for ascertaining the actual position of the Site construction which, according to the plaintiff, was illegally being undertaken by the first Defendant/Respondent in the present Injunction Suit. The relevant reasons given by the learned Trial Court in the impugned Order dated 03/01/2017 are quoted below for ready reference:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff - petitioner relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Rathnamma Vs. Ademma, (2010) 3 KarLJ 130 submits that where the parties have not placed sufficient material on record to show that the evidence available on record is sufficient for effective adjudication of the case, then in such a circumstance, the Court ought to have appointed a Commissioner to ascertain the correct factual position.