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

1989 Supreme(Pat) 63

BINOD KUMAR ROY
Bijendra Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Mishra – Respondent


Judgment

Binod Kr.Roy, J.

1. Through this civil revision application the plaintiffs pray to set aside an order rejecting their petition dated 10 9-1986, through which they had prayed for appointment of a survey knowing Advocate Commissioner, on the grounds inter alia that the proposed appointment will not be of any use to either side or in deciding the suit and that the points raised therein can be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

2. Mr. Umashankar Singh No. 2, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that even though the impugned order is interlocutory in nature it has been passed by completely misconceiving the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and as it amounts to case decided within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Sec.115 of the Code and covered by the explanation attached under Sub-section (2) of the aforementioned section is liable to be set aside in civil revision. Mr. Singh in support of his propositions relied on Ramji Ram V/s. Ramashre Raut AIR 1994 Pat 761; Ram Kirpal Missir V/s. Mahesh Pandey -- .

3. In -- , after relying upon certain observations in AIR 1924 Pat 761 (sup












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