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

2023 Supreme(MP) 1055

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Gorelal Lodhi S/o Pyarelal Lodhi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Misc. Petition No. 5356 of 2023
Decided On : 20-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shobhana Sharma
For the Respondent: Naveen Dubey

The court affirmed that a local commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence as it improperly delegates judicial authority, which violates the principles of adjudication.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - CPC - Order 26 Rule 9 - Petition challenging rejection of application for appointment of local commissioner to verify existence of a house in a title suit - Court ruled that appointment of commissioner for collection of evidence is not permissible as it delegates judicial jurisdiction. (Paras 1-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents over the existence of a 100-year-old house, seeking to appoint a local commissioner due to disputes over existence. The application was rejected by the Trial Court on grounds of improper evidence collection.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the Trial Court's rejection, noting that the request for a local commissioner amounted to improper delegation of its adjudicative role.

Issues: The main issue was whether a local commissioner could be appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to gather evidence on the existence of the disputed house.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Trial Court acted correctly in rejecting the application as it does not permit delegation of judicial duties to local commissioner for fact-finding.

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 26.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kesli, District Sagar in RCSA No.3/2019, by which an application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Since the respondents are disputing the existence of a house which is 100 years old, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of local commissioner to submit a report with regard to existence of the house.

3. The Trial Court by the impugned order has rejected the application mainly on the ground that local commissioner cannot be appointed for collection of evidence. It is submitted that since the respondents have denied existence of the house, therefore, appointment of commissioner is necessary. Whatever a report will be submitted by the commissioner cannot be termed as evidence and thus, the Trial Court has committed a material illegality by rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC.

4. Per contra, counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the court below.

5. Heard counsel for the parties.

6. In the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC the petitioner has pleaded as under :-

3- ;g fd] çfroknhx.k us vius tokcnkok esa cknh ds mä edku ds vfLrRo ds laca/k eas badkj fd;k gS fd ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g vko';d gks x;k gS fd oknh vius edku dk LFky fujh{k.k djkos rkdh oknxzLr edku dh fLFkfr Li"V gks ldsA oknxzLr edku dk LFky fujh{k.k jktLo vf/kdkjh ;k fdlh vf/koäk ds ek/;e ls djk;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vko';d gSA

7. Thus, it is clear that solitary contention of the petitioner is to seek appointment of local commissioner to verify existence and condition of the house. This certainly amounts to collection of evidence. The petitioner by leading evidence can always prove his claim. The Court cannot delegate its jurisdiction to a local commissioner to adjudicate the disputed questions of facts.

8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court did not commit any error by rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. As no jurisdictional error was committed by the Trial Court, therefore, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top