Back
B. S. BHANUMATHI
Mangilipudi Akhil, S/o Late Venkata Saras Chandrababu – Appellant
Versus
Thota Pundarikakshulu, S/o Satyanarayana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the petition and issues relevant to the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by parties regarding the necessity of the mandal surveyor as a witness. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's reasoning on witness examination rules and procedural compliance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's decision to intervene due to trial court's jurisdictional error. (Para 16) |
| 5. conclusion allowing the civil revision petition and setting aside the prior order. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.07.2022, dismissing the I.A.No.330 of 2022 in O.S.No.200 of 2018 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed by the plaintiffs under Order XVI Rule 14 and Section 151 of C.P.C., to issue summons to the Mandal Surveyor, Kakinada Rural Mandal, to give evidence as court witness as he assisted the Advocate Commissioner appointed in I.A.No.807 of 2018.
2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.807 of 2018, seeking appointment of the Commissioner. When the said application was allowed and an advocate was appointed as Commissioner for taking mea
The court emphasized that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and summoning witnesses are at the court's discretion, and the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff.
The court clarified that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and summoning witnesses are at the court's discretion, not a right of the parties, and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff....
The court established that additional evidence cannot be admitted in appellate proceedings if the party had prior opportunities to present it, and that the appointment of a commissioner should not be....
The main legal point established is that the provision of Order XXVI Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. allows for cross-examination of the Court Commissioner on the procedure followed in conducting the survey, b....
The court established that the appointment of a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC is not to be used as a means to collect evidence after the closure of proceedings, and such application....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
