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

2012 Supreme(All) 1689

SUDHIR AGARWAL
Som Singh – Appellant
Versus
Santoshi Devi and Another – Respondent


Advocates:
Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, Advocate, for Petitioner.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

1. Heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by Additional district Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) rejecting petitioner's appeal for appointment of Commissioner for spot inspection.

3. The appellate court found that firstly such a request was never made by petitioner before trial court and secondly the petitioner has not been able to show any obligation on the part of court below to pass such an order and appellate court in its wisdom found that application submitted by petitioner is nothing but a device to delay the proceedings and to cover up the lapses in the court below.

4. It is well settled that under Order 26 Rule 10 and 11 of Code of Civil Procedure the Court is not bound to appoint Commissioner on mere asking of parties but it is for the court when it found necessary to appoint Commissioner for some further investigation or information, it can do so. Power of the court to appoint Commissioner is not disputed but it is not the legal right of parties to force the court to appoint Commissioner. A local inspection, whether necessary or not, d










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