Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Nejam Ansari, S/o. Late Tifazat Ansari – Appellant
Versus
Mojahim Ansari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1.
2. Ms. Priyanka Bobby, A.C. to Mr. G.K. Sinha, learned counsel submit that the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have taken No Objection from her office, in view of that she is not in a position to argue the matter on their behalf.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Lohardaga, in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2022, whereby, the petition filed under Order- XXVI Rules-9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court.
4. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners instituted original Title Suit No.08/2015 against the defendants /respondents before the learned Court of Munsif, Lohardaga. The case of Plaintiffs/Petitioners in short is that lands of R.S. Khata 173, Plot No.630, Area 3 decimals and Plot No.640, Area 59 decimals, out of total area 62 decimals situated at village Nigni, Plot
The appointment of a survey knowing pleader commissioner is not for collecting evidence but to assist the court, and petitioners must prove their case to justify such an appointment.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a second Commissioner should only occur if the report of the first Commissioner is unsatisfactory and the court is dissatis....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, ensuring proper exercise of powers by trial courts.
The appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is justified under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to resolve property boundary disputes, even if a previous suit exists, provided the circumstances differ.
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
