Back
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Anil Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Anoj Kumar – Respondent
Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge IV, Danapur whereby and whereunder the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) by the plaintiff/respondent 1st set in Title Suit No 433 of 2013 for appointment of Pleader Commissioner stands allowed. Subsequently, by filing interlocutory application, further relief has been sought against the report dated 16.01.2018 which was submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner before the learned trial court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs have filed a completely frivolous suit without any documents and in order to create evidence, they filed the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code and the learned trial court erroneously allowed the said application mentioning that for ascertaining the rights and possession over the suit property, the report of the Pleader Commissioner was necessary and thereby allowed the application for submission of report of the Pleader Commissioner on the points mentioned in the applicatio
The discretion to issue a Commission for local investigation lies with the trial Court, and the report of the Commissioner is not binding on the trial Court.
Judicial orders must be reasoned, as a non-speaking order is unsustainable and undermines the court's authority.
The court ruled that plaintiffs are responsible for proving their claims in litigation and cannot rely on the court to gather evidence on their behalf, emphasizing the judicial principle of party res....
The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is unnecessary when sufficient evidence exists to determine the facts in a partition suit.
The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a partition suit is unnecessary if sufficient evidence has already been presented by the parties involved.
The court ruled that the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner is not warranted when evidence can be conveniently provided by the parties themselves, especially before trial has progressed.
A plaintiff cannot seek a Local Commissioner to gather evidence if there is no substantial basis for such request, particularly when the burden of proof lies with them regarding ownership claims.
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....
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
