AI Overview...
-
Rejection of Application under Order 26 Rule 9 - Courts have consistently held that the rejection of an application for appointment of a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 is generally not revisable or appealable, emphasizing the discretionary nature of such orders. For example, the case discussed in R. Devraju VS Seenappa - Karnataka confirms that orders rejecting such applications cannot be interfered with on appeal or revision.
-
Grounds for Rejection - Rejections are typically based on the court's assessment that sufficient evidence or circumstances do not warrant the appointment, or that the application is premature or unnecessary. In SRI SRINIVASA v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, the court rejected the application due to the court's belief that sufficient evidence was already available to adjudicate the case.
-
Permissibility of Reconsideration - Some judgments, such as ARARIT LAL VS REV. TC CHACKO, PRIEST - Himachal Pradesh and RAJ MAL RAJPOOT VS RAJ KUMARI - Himachal Pradesh, suggest that while initial rejection is generally final, orders setting aside or modifying such rejection can be made if procedural errors or new evidence emerge, but the rejection itself remains largely non-revisable.
-
Judicial Discretion and Case Law - The courts emphasize that the decision to appoint or reject a commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 is within judicial discretion, and such orders are not orders deciding the case under Section 115 or similar provisions, thus limiting appellate interference (ARARIT LAL VS REV. TC CHACKO, PRIEST - Himachal Pradesh, BIMAL KANTA TRIPATHY VS SATYA NARAYAN MISHRA - Orissa).
Analysis and Conclusion:
The case law indicates that orders rejecting applications under Order 26 Rule 9 are primarily discretionary and generally not subject to revision or appeal, reinforcing the principle that such decisions are final unless procedural irregularities or exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration. Courts focus on whether the application was justified and whether sufficient grounds exist for appointment, but once rejected, such orders are upheld as final in most circumstances (R. Devraju VS Seenappa - Karnataka, SRI SRINIVASA v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, ARARIT LAL VS REV. TC CHACKO, PRIEST - Himachal Pradesh).
Search Results for "Case Law on Rejecting Application under Order 26 Rule 9"
2019 0 Supreme(UK) 166 • India - Uttarakhand
MANOJ K.TIWARI
Fact of the Case: Petitioner filed an application for appointment of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for ... Order 26 Rule 9 - Appointment of Commission - C.P.C. - [Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.] ... Finding of the Court: The High Cour....
2011 0 Supreme(Cal) 897 • India - Calcutta
PRASENJIT MANDAL
Local Investigation - Boundary Dispute - The court allowed the application for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the ... Issues: The main issue was whether the application for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. should be allowed ... They sought a local investigation under Or....
2000 0 Supreme(HP) 159 • India - Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order 26 Rule 9 & Section 115 - Application for appointment of local commissioner to demarcate the suit ... of a local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9, CPC, cannot be said to be an Order amounting to a "Case decided" - A revision against ... land, dismissed - Whether ....
2002 0 Supreme(HP) 133 • India - Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
Local Commissioner - Boundary wall dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 26 Rule 9 Fact of the Case: The plaintiff ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision to appoint a Local Commissioner under Rule 9 of Order 26 is not revisable ... Issues: The maintainability of the revision petition against the appointment of a ....
2015 0 Supreme(Ori) 669 • India - Orissa
A.K.RATH
Survey Knowing Commissioner - Boundary Dispute - Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. - The judgment discusses the application of Order 26 Rule ... Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. and previous case law#H....
2019 0 Supreme(UK) 213 • India - Uttarakhand
MANOJ K.TIWARI
Order 26 Rule 9 - Application for Appointment of Commission - C.P.C. - Order 26 Rule 9, Order 41 Rule 27 - Summary: The court ... Fact of the Case: The petitioner filed an application for appointment of commission under Order 26#HL_EN....
2014 0 Supreme(Kar) 984 • India - Karnataka
H.BILLAPPA
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Order 26, Rule 9: [H. ... Order rejecting application for appointment of Court Commissioner cannot be interfered with. ... Billappa, J] Appointment of Court Commissioner - Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction - Application filed for appointment ... At the stage of evidence the petitioner has filed appl....
2009 0 Supreme(HP) 1114 • India - Himachal Pradesh
DEV DARSHAN SUD
encroachment - property dispute - [Code of Civil Procedure, Order 41 Rule 27, Order 26 Rule 9, Order 14 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule ... Fact of the Case: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, alleging ... The court also addressed procedural matters re....
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5800 • India - High Court of Karnataka
SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 26 Rule 9 - Appointment of Court Commissioner - The plaintiff sought to appoint a commissioner ... The trial Court rejected the application, stating that sufficient evidence was already presented to adjudicate the case. ... The Court emphasized the plaintiff's burden to prove his case. ... While rejecting the #....
• India - Gujarat High Court
R.R. Jain, J
In this case, the court considered the appointment of a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to inspect ... The final outcome decreed that the impugned order was set aside. ... This ground alone cannot be considered for rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule #HL_....
Filter by Legal Phrase
