The Division Bench dismissed the civil revision challenging the confirmation of an Amins' report. The Court held that a report is merely evidence to be appreciated later and cannot intrinsically vitiate an interim order without jurisdictional error causing injury.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 44 of 2018
Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Trivedi Opposite Party :- Munna @ Khusro Jabbad And 6 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
This revision is directed against the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Meerut in Original Suit No. 110 of 2015 by which an Amins' report, Paper No. 71-Ga, has been confirmed stating that the objection by the plaintiff revisionist thereto, is purely formal in nature.
This revision is belated and is supported by an application for condonation of delay.
In the interest of justice and in view of the order proposed to be passed the delay in filing this revision is hereby condoned without issuing any notice to the opposite party.
The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that the Amins' report has been confirmed has not been made subject to evidence and, therefore, the order vitiated.
In my considered opinion, this submission, is entirely misconceived because the Amins' report is nothing but piece of evidence and the same has to be considered and appreciated while deciding the suit finally. No evidence without its due appreciation by the Court can be held to be conclusive.
Under the circumstances, therefore, no ground for interference in the order impugned is made out. It does not, in any case, suffer from any jurisdictional error. Neither the revisionist can be said to have suffered from any injury, thereby.
In view of the foregoing, this revision fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- Priyanka 25.5.2018 KUMAR ANJANI Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRADN: C=IN, O=Personal, PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar Pradesh, Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3ea049885bf64ad5bbb33050e3dfe3e210927d94f413, SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9f36f85dbdc71f5b0ec1e2f0938431e25dbbadc93823915b36c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2018-05-25 14:38:32Foxit Reader Version: 9.1.0 MISHRA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the confirmation of the Amins' report in the impugned order attracts interference in civil revision under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Anjani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
