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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 365

RAJU
S. Anthonidoss & another – Appellant
Versus
Sabesthiyan & another – Respondent


Advocates:
M/s. G. Jeremiah, Advocate for Petitioner.

Judgment :

.1. The above revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners before the trial Court challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 211. 1995 in I.A.No.450 of 1995 in O.S.No.231 of 1995, whereunder the application filed under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit items 1 and 20 and note the physical features that may be pointed out at the time of inspection and to file a report, came to be rejected. The case of the applicants before the Court below was that the second respondent has filed a counter stating that he has stored black metal etc. in the suit items 1 and 20 and it belongs to him, that the said materials used for building purpose and construction absolutely belonged to the plaintiffs, that

.such materials came to be stored by the plaintiffs long back and that the nature and condition and position of the materials will clearly reveal how old they are and what time it was stored. It is, therefore, to ascertain the abovesaid fact, according to the petitioners, the only way is to make a local inspection and it requires appointme






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