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

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN SARIN
B.L. Nijhawan – Appellant
Versus
Satish Ray Kapoor – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner by this civil revision petition is assailing the order dated 15.4.1994 passed by Mrs. Seema Maini, Sub Judge, Delhi in suit No.560 of 1978, whereby she allowed the application moved by the respondent under order 26 rule 10 C.P.C. and permitted the Local Commissioner's report together with the documents, to be admitted in the evidence'

2. The petition raises a short but important question with which the civil courts are frequently confronted viz., whether an ex parte report of the Local Commissioner can be admitted in evidence in terms of order 26 rule 10(2) C.P.C. without the same being proved?

The answer to this question turns on the provisions of order 26 rule 10 C.P.C. and order 26 rule 18 C.P.C. Before examining the legal provisions, the facts in brief of the case may be recapitulated:

    (i) The respondent No. 1 Satish Ray Kapoor had on 25.8.1987 instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the petitioner herein i.e. defendant No.1 in the suit from constructing a mezzanine with or without the consent of the petitioner and other respondents in Shop No.78/3, Janpath, New Delhi. The respondent had also alongwith the

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