SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Kar) 195

A.V.SRINIVASA REDDY
ANNAPPA MESTHA – Appellant
Versus
MUTAYYAACHARIQ – Respondent


Advocates:
Annapurna Bevinje

A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition under Section 115 of the CPC seeks to challenge the order dated 7-11-2001 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, kundapura on I. A. No. IX in O. S. No. 808 of 1987.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed application I. A. No. IX under Order 26, Rule 9 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property, note the details of work done and to submit a report. The suit as originally filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration and permanent injunction. Later on the suit came to be amended by alleging encroachment of plaintiffs property and the claim for possession of the encroached property was also added to the original prayer of declaration and permanent injunction. By LA. No. IX the petitioner-plaintiff sought for the appointment of the Commissioner to ascertain the exact extent of encroachment by the defendant. The Court below declined to grant the prayer in I. A. No. DC Hence, the present revision petition.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent, though served, is unrepresented.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner cited a numb








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top