A writ petition filed against the rejection of an application for the appointment of a court commissioner. The High Court held the application had no merit as the petitioner could still produce the earlier commission report and distinguished cited precedent.
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.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1983 OF 2004
Dagadu Pandurang Salunkhe,
..Petitioner
Vs
Shahaji Bharat Pawar,..
Mr Macchindra A. Patil, for the petitioner.
..Respondent
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2005.
P.C.
1.Heard Mr Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2.The petitioner’s application for appointment
ofcourt commissioner has been rejected on the
following grounds: firstly, that the commissioner
cannot be appointed for collecting evidence to
establish possession of the petitioner-plaintiff,
secondly, the application was filed at belated stage
and thirdly on the ground that in another suit filed
by the petitioner seeking permanent injunction the
commissioner was appointed and he had inspected the
suit property and he had produced the report in that
suit. No attempts were made by the plaintiff to get
that report produced on the record in the instant
suit. Mr Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner,
:2:
submitted that another suit in which the court
commissioner was appointed was a suit for injunction
simpliciter whereas the instant suit is for specific
performance of an agreement and, therefore, the
appointment of the court commissioner to find out who
is in possession is necessary.
3.After having heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner and considered the findings of the
courts below, I find absolutely no merit in this writ
petition. It is still open for the petitioner to
produce a copy of the court commission’s report filed
in his suit for permanent injunction in the instant
suit. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in
Ramchandra Bhikaji Jagtap Vs. Dudhram Langruji
Padvekar, 2003 (4) ALL M.R 990 is of no avail to the
petitioner in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. The writ petition is
dismissed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the appointment of a court commissioner to ascertain possession in a suit for specific performance, considering a prior suit for permanent injunction where a comm
Whether the failure of the petitioner to produce the report of the court commissioner from the earlier suit defeats the application for its production in the instant suit.
Whether the decision in Ramchandra Bhikaji Jagtap Vs. Dudhram Langruji Padvekar of 2003 applies to the facts of the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramchandra Bhikaji Jagtap Vs. Dudhram Langruji PadvekarDistinguished¶3
Ramchandra Bhikaji Jagtap Vs. Dudhram Langruji Padvekar, 2003 (4) ALL M.R 990
Dagadu Pandurang Salunkhe
Shahaji Bharat Pawar
D.B. Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court