Back
JAY SENGUPTA
Krishna Trading Company – Appellant
Versus
N. Guruswamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
1. This is a revisional application challenging the order dated 29.09.2021 passed in Other Suit No. 21 of 2003 renumbered as Other Suit No. 12 off 2012 (M/s Krishna Trading Company – Vs – Shri. N.Guruswamy and another) by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Port Blair, thereby allowing the application for appointment of Commissioner filed by the opposite parties/defendants under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit bearing Other Suit No. 21 of 2003 against the opposite parties/defendants for eviction. The defendants filed their written statement in the suit. During pendency of the suit, the opposite parties/defendants filed the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the suit along with the application under Sections 25 and 29 of the Andaman and Nicobar Rent Control Regulation, 1964 seeking repair of premises. The petitioner filed a written objection and specifically contended that a report should be called from the APWD and the PBMC to ascertain the condition of the premises in question i.e., whether the same is repairable or not.
3. Mr. N.A.Khan, learned co
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 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 ....
The necessity of local inspection in civil suits to ascertain property conditions is affirmed, allowing for better evidence collection.
A court is required to adjudicate an application concerning the alleged violation of an interim injunction on its own merits before proceeding to the final arguments of the main suit to preserve the ....
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....
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
