Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J
Sri Shadaksharappa – Appellant
Versus
Kumari Vijayalaxmi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and case background. (Para 1 , 15) |
| 2. arguments regarding appointment of a commissioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court’s evaluation of evidence and discretion on local inspections. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. decisional authority on when to appoint a commissioner. (Para 13 , 17 , 19) |
ORDER
In a suit for mandatory injunction for removal of the alleged encroachment on the suit road, to prove the encroachment, the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of the Commissioner for local inspection. Accepting the objection by the first defendant, the Trial Court rejected the application, on the ground that the application filed before the completion of the trial is premature.
The liberty is granted to file a fresh application, after the completion of the trial, provided there is any ambiguity in the evidence.
2. Learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Patil, appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the plaintiff is complaining about the encroachment on a portion of the suit road, and the defendant has denied the allegation of encroachment, both in the written statement as well as in the cross-examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff with a view to produce best
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
