ARUN KUMAR JHA
Divya Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Jugeshwar Nath Srivastava – Respondent
Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the part of the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Danapur, Patna in Title Appeal No. 79/2019 (Divya Kumari & Ors. vs. Jugeshwar Nath Srivastava) whereby and whereunder the application of the present petitioners dated 07.04.2022 filed for scientific measurement of the land in question has been dismissed. The petitioners have further prayed for direction to the learned first appellate court to appoint a Survey Knowing Advocate Commissioner to conduct and hold scientific measurement of the disputed plot of land by allowing the petitioners’ petition dated 07.04.2022 filed under Order 26 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) while holding that the learned first appellate court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
2. The conspectus of the case of the parties is that in the year 2011, Title Suit No. 112/2011 (Smt. Sudha Devi & Ors. vs. Jugeshwar Nath Srivastava) was filed by the plaintiffs in the court of learned Sub Judge, Danapur, Patna seeking, inter alia, declaration of ti
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P.
Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Sarvepalli Radha Krishnan University vs. Union of India
Lachhmi Narain Singh vs. Sarjug Singh
Jai Singh vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Smt. Shamshad Khatun vs. State of Bihar
Umesh Pd. Thakur vs. Nand Kumar Singh
R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple
Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar
Dr. Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi
The court affirmed that previous orders rejecting applications for scientific measurement in ongoing litigation are final and cannot be re-agitated, emphasizing the principles of res judicata and tim....
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....
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....
Law relating to appointment of Court Commissioner is fairly well settled and that the Court Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence.
Reliance on a local commissioner's report in judicial decisions must comply with natural justice principles; failure to allow cross-examination and address objections renders a judgment unsustainable....
Court Commissioner for land measurement under CPC not appointable before plaintiff's evidence in encroachment suit on alleged government acquired land when dispute is acquisition status per prior dec....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.