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

2015 Supreme(Ori) 669

A.K.RATH
BIMAL KANTA TRIPATHY – Appellant
Versus
SATYA NARAYAN MISHRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D. Bhuyan, B.N. Bhuyan and U. Padhi, for the Appellant; R. Mohapatra and N. Sarkar, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J.

1. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 2.8.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), 1st Court, Cuttack in C.S. No. 213 of 2003, the instant petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. to depute a survey knowing civil court commissioner. The petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-opposite parties from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit land or making any construction over the same in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), 1st Court, Cuttack, which is registered as C.S. No. 213 of 2003. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. While the matter stood thus, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., for deputing a civil court commissioner to resolve the dispute. Learned trial court allowed the same and accordingly deputed a survey knowing civil court commissioner to measure the land a
















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