Back
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Shadaksharappa S/o Veranna – Appellant
Versus
Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/o Pampanna – Respondent
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 possible evidence moved an application for local inspection. This being the position, the order rejecting the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for local inspection is unsustainable.
3. Learned counsel Sri Sanjay Kulkarni, appearing for the first respondent opposed the petition contending t
The court clarified that the appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection in encroachment cases is permissible even before trial, reinforcing the report as vital evidence.
The court established that the appointment of a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC is not to be used as a means to collect evidence after the closure of proceedings, and such application....
The discretion of appointing an Advocate Commissioner under CPC does not equate to gathering evidence; it serves to resolve disputes of property boundaries effectively.
The court established that additional evidence cannot be admitted in appellate proceedings if the party had prior opportunities to present it, and that the appointment of a commissioner should not be....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and local commissioners can be appointed before recording evidence.
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
