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

1987 Supreme(Ori) 145

R.C.PATNAIK
MAHENDRANATH – Appellant
Versus
PURNANANDA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.PATNAIK, N.P.Patnaik, P.CH.MOHAPATRA, Sashibhusan Jena, Sunakar Jena

R. C. PATNAIK, J.


( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the additional Munsif, Kendrapara refusing to appoint a civil court commissioner for local inspection under the provision of O. 26, R. 9 of the Civil P. C.

( 2 ) THE controversy between the parties was as to the location of a wall, namely, whether it stood on west of plot No. 306 or on the east of plot No. 307. The learned Additional Munsif rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff petitioner for local inspection. The application was rejected as premature with the observation that if it was considered necessary, commissioner would be appointed after evidence was closed.

( 3 ) THOUGH the question of law is a simple one, it requires elaboration having regard to some stray observations in some judgements that the Court can refuse to appoint a commissioner under the provision of O. 26, R. 9 and require the party to adduce evidence through a private Amin after getting the land measured by him.

( 4 ) O. 26, R. 9 of the Civil P. C. reads as under :-"r. 9. Commissions to make local investigation. In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidati


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