Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Kamini Devi W/o Satya Narayan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ram Balak Prasad S/o Late Jalo Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by learned Sub Judge, Teghra in Title Suit No. 188 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 on 02.03.2022 under Order 26 Rule 10 & 10-A and under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) has been allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 has filed the Title Suit bearing no. 188 of 2013 in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Begusarai against the defendant/petitioner and two others for the relief regarding declaration of bona fide right, title and interest of the plaintiff/ respondent’s joint family over Schedule II land comprised in Khata No. 326, Plot Nos. 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433 Milzumla area 1 bigha 13 katha out of Schedule 1 land comprised in Khata No. 326, Plot Nos. 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433, area 9 bigha 12 katha 9 dhurs. Defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. Plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a petition on 02.03.2022 under Order 26 Rule 10 & 10-A and unde
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 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.
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....
The court determined the necessity of appointing a Pleader Commissioner for proper adjudication despite delays in proceedings, emphasizing compliance with prior orders.
Appointment of Pleader Commissioner – Inspection of a Commission as per Order 39 Rule 7 CPC is for a limited purpose either for detention or preservation or inspection of a suit property.
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.
The appointment of a survey knowing pleader commissioner is not for collecting evidence but to assist the court, and petitioners must prove their case to justify such an appointment.
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
