High Court of Karnataka Quashes Appointment of Commissioner in Final Decree Proceedings for Lack of Notice to Defendants. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC requires notice to all parties before appointing a commissioner for partition, and failure to do so vitiates the order.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: KALABURAGI In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, who were defendants in a final decree proceeding (FDP No. 2/08) before the Principal Civil Judge, Bijapur, challenged an interim order dated 15.12.2012 passed on I.A. No. 4 filed under Order 26 Rules 9 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The trial court had appointed a commissioner for partition without issuing notice to the defendants. The petitioners argued that this was illegal and violative of natural justice. The High Court, in its order dated 14.02.2013, agreed with the petitioners, holding that the appointment of a commissioner without notice to the defendants is not permissible under law. The court emphasized that in final decree proceedings, the appointment of a commissioner is a serious matter that affects the rights of the parties, and therefore, notice must be given to all parties before such appointment. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the trial court to hear the parties afresh before appointing a commissioner.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Commissioner Appointment - Notice Requirement - Order 26 Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court appointed a commissioner for partition without notice to the defendants, who were the petitioners. The High Court held that such appointment without notice is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the defendants have a right to be heard before any commissioner is appointed. (Para 5)

B) Civil Procedure - Final Decree Proceedings - Commissioner's Report - Order 26 Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court observed that in final decree proceedings, the appointment of a commissioner is a serious matter affecting the rights of parties, and therefore, notice must be given to all parties before such appointment. The impugned order was set aside. (Para 5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court could appoint a commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC without issuing notice to the defendants in a final decree proceeding.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2012 passed on I.A. No. 4 in FDP No. 2/08 is quashed. The trial court is directed to hear the parties afresh before appointing a commissioner.

Law Points

  • Order 26 Rule 9 CPC
  • Notice to parties
  • Commissioner appointment
  • Final decree proceedings
  • Natural justice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (KAR) (02) 29

Writ Petition No.51512 of 2012 (GM-CPC)

2013-02-14

N. Kumar

Umesh V Mamadapur for petitioners, Ashok S Kinagi for respondents 1-6

Smt. Murthujabi and others

Smt. Nilamma and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging an interim order appointing a commissioner in final decree proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the interim order dated 15.12.2012 passed on I.A. No. 4 in FDP No. 2/08.

Filing Reason

The trial court appointed a commissioner without notice to the defendants.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed an interim order on I.A. No. 4 appointing a commissioner.

Issues

Whether the appointment of a commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC without notice to the defendants is valid.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that the appointment of a commissioner without notice is illegal and contrary to law.

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of a commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC without notice to the defendants is illegal and cannot be sustained. Notice to all parties is mandatory before appointing a commissioner in final decree proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The appointment of a commissioner without notice to the defendants is illegal and cannot be sustained.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interim order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bijapur on I.A. No. 4 in FDP No. 2/08, which appointed a commissioner without notice to the defendants.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 26 Rule 9, Order 26 Rule 14
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petitioner's Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Commissioner Appointment in Civil Suit. Trial court's discretionary order under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC not interfered with as no jurisdictional error found.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Appointment of Commissioner in Final Decree Proceedings for Lack of Notice to Defendants. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC requires notice to all parties before appointing a commissioner for partition, and failure to do so vitiates...