Back
A.BADHARUDEEN
K. M. Abdul Jaleel S/O. Hassankutty – Appellant
Versus
Thazhe Iravath Rabiya, W/O Abdul Salam – Respondent
The petitioner (plaintiff in O.S. No. 156/2020) challenged an order refusing appointment of an expert commission to assess construction in the plaint schedule building. [15000519990001] (!)
The suit seeks decree against forceful eviction and mandatory injunction for vacant possession; issues are whether such reliefs are grantable. [15000519990004] (!) (!)
Trial court dismissed the application as assessment of construction value is not an issue in the suit. [15000519990005]
Purpose of commission under Section 75(b) and Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is to elucidate matters in dispute, ascertain market value, mesne profits, etc., not extraneous matters. [15000519990007]
Courts must pronounce judgment only on framed issues per Order 14 Rule 2 CPC; commissions cannot be issued for irrelevant matters. [15000519990007]
No prayer in plaint for value of improvements; commission not needed to decide eviction or possession issues. [15000519990009] (!)
No evidence or documents showing defendants' permission for plaintiff's construction; licence deed lacks such recitals. [15000519990008][15000519990010]
Even if construction occurred, current assessment meaningless without prior condition of building before alleged works. [15000519990011]
Seeking commission for non-issue matters amounts to abuse of process to protract proceedings, which must be curtailed. [15000519990009]
Original petition under Article 227 dismissed; trial court's order upheld. (!) [15000519990002]
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.156/2020 pending before the Munsiff Court, Koilandy. The respondents herein are defendants 1 to 3 in the above Suit.
2. Petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order in I.A.No.15/2022 dated 19.05.2022 in the above case, whereby the learned Munsiff negatived the prayer for appointment of an expert commission to assess the construction carried out by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule building.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Abraham Mathew (Vettoor) and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Advocate Prem Kumar. Notice to other respondents dispensed with.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner obtained the plaint schedule building on the strength of a deed of `licence'. Later the arrangement was changed as `lease' and he has been continuing as a tenant in the plaint schedule building. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Suit was filed as one for forceful eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule building, it is necessary in the interest of justice to asse
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
