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

2010 Supreme(HP) 1090

V.K.AHUJA
Daya Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Suraj Mani – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral):

The present petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge allowing an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Local Commissioner and directing that Tehsildar, Sadar, be appointed as Local commissioner to demarcate the suit land.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent, was dismissed. An application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. was filed before the first Appellate Court, which considered the question that the relief of mandatory injunction was declined by the Court below since only a Tatima was produced in evidence and no demarcation report was produced for just determination of the case and the fact that as to whether the petitioners have encroached upon the suit land and to what extent and if so, during the pendency of the suit, it is necessary that Local Commissioner should be appointed to demarcate the land and give his report accordingly. A reference was also made to a decision of this Court in Brahm Dutt Vs. Prem Chand, 2000 (1) SLJ 431, wherein similar question arose and it was held b

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