Back
SANDEEP K. SHINDE
Mayur Sakharam Paricharak – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Haridas Bhise – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dtd. 13/7/2022,by which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division in exercise of the powers under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 appointed, Shri S.N. Kulkarni, Advocate to inspect the Suit Shop and submit report along with the map.
2. Respondent/Plaintiff, instituted the suit against the Petitioner-defendant for mandatory injunction and the damages. He claimed his possession in the suit shop over a period of 40 years, as statutory monthly tenant, of petitioner-landlord. His case is, that the Suit Shop was damaged substantially, because of which it was not feasible to run grocery business therein. As such, Petitioner/Landlord, had agreed to repair the building in which the Suit Shop is housed. For that end, he handed over possession of the shop to the Petitioner/Landlord, on 30/10/2020. Plaintiff claims that Petitioner-Landlord had agreed to complete the repairs within 15 days and this understanding was reduced into writing on 30/10/2020 in presence of two independent witnesses. In spite of it, landlord did not commence repair work and, therefore, plaintiff lodge
The main legal point established is that the appointment of a commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 is for the limited purpose of inspection necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, not for the ....
Point of Law : No need for an expert’s opinion to ascertain the condition of the building in regarding the demolition of its roof.
The Court emphasized the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the impugned order due to misapplication of the relevant provisions.
The court affirmed that a defendant must clearly deny all allegations in the plaint to substantiate their defense and cannot seek evidence collection unless disputes are established.
A defendant must explicitly deny all allegations in a plaint to establish a defense; failure to do so restricts their ability to seek property inspections.
The court clarified that a defendant must specifically deny allegations in a plaint to pursue an application for local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7, emphasizing the significance of directly chall....
Tenants cannot be forcibly dispossessed without legal grounds, and tenancy agreements must be upheld, as reaffirmed by the court.
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
