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

1989 Supreme(Bom) 370

H.SURESH
Kishore H. Desai – Appellant
Versus
Lilawati Virji Chheda and others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - H. SURESH, J.:---Whether a commission for local investigation under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure can be issued ex parte? If so, whether the commission can be executed without notice to both the parties ? Is the report of the Commissioner, in such a case, receivable in evidence? Whether the rules relating to Caveat under section 148-A of the Code of civil Procedure apply to the issuance of any commission ? These are the questions which require to be determined in this civil revision application.

2. Now to certain minimum facts. In fact, the litigation between the parties and the way it has multiplied reminds one of what Lord Simon once said: "The bitter waters would never ebb", (Re Ampthill Pearage case)1, (1976) 2 All E.R. 411, (at P 438). So much so, Mr. Dave informs me that the petitioners have been filing their caveats once in three months in all the three Courts, the Small Causes Court, the Bombay City Civil Court and the High Court for the last few years. It all began in October 1981 when the landlord (the deceased father of respondent Nos. 1 to 5) filed a suit as against the tenant (deceased father of petitioner No. 1) being R.A.E. Suit No. 1317/4






















































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