CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J
Mrinal Kanti Mondal & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Rajib Das & Anr. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the commissioner's report (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's acceptance of report despite contradictions (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evidentiary evaluation process explained (Para 5) |
| 4. ruling on set aside of impugned order (Para 6 , 7) |
1. Present petition has been filed challenging the Order No.114 dated 6th July, 2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Basirhat, inter alia, held that the Commissioner’s report cannot be set aside on technical ground and accepted the report of the Commissioner.
2. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that reading of the entire order actually demonstrates the inherent contradictions in the order itself. In the backdrop, petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of a Commissioner to make certain local investigation. The local Commissioner filed the report in pursuance to Order 26 Rule 10 sub-rule (1), CPC. As being stated by bar by both the learned counsels, the Commissioner was examined and cross-
examined.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide impugned order despite noting various contradictions in the report of the local Commissioner, the learn
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.