Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Nityananda Chutia, S/o. Bhugeswar Chutia – Appellant
Versus
Sabir Azim Shah, S/o. Late Nowrang Shah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. By this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of two civil revision petitions, namely, CRP (IO) No. 54/2024 and CRP (IO) No.60/2024, as in both the cases the order dated 25.01.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, in Misc.(J) Case No. 15/2024, arising out of Misc.(J) Case No. 01/2024 has been put to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Deka, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the above-mentioned cases. Also heard Mr. N.J. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in both the cases.
3. By the impugned order dated 25.01.2024, passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 15/2024, arising out of Misc.(J) Case No. 01/2024, in connection with T.S. No. 01/2024, the application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7, who are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 01/2024, praying for issuance of a commission for verifying, as to whether constructions, which are carried out by the DEE and A Solution Pvt. Ltd. and Sri Meghnath Das, [who are the responden
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....
In view of the nature of the dispute between the parties as regards the demarcation of the disputed land and the High Court having not addressed that issue by appointment of a local Commission for de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC is limited to cases where demarcation of the property is in dispute and can....
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....
Point of Law : Court cannot prevent a party from adducing best evidence if such evidence can be gathered with the help of commission.
The court held that applications for rejection of plaint and appointment of commission must be independently considered, with priority given to objections before proceeding with the trial.
The discretionary nature of relief under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC and the limited scope for entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
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
