dismissing a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court held that the trial Court rightly rejected the petitioner-defendant's application for appointing a court commissioner, and no interference was warranted in this writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is dismissed as such.
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.2034 OF 2004
Gangadhar Dagdu Mali,..
Vs
Vithal Hari Mali,..
Mr S.S. Patwardhan, for the petitioner.
..Petitioner
..Respondent
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2005.
P.C.
1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.The petitioner-defendant’s application for
appointment of court commissioner to prove that
except the disputed three windows, there are no other
windows available for ventilation has been rejected
by the impugned order. Admittedly, it is not the
case of the respondent-plaintiff that there are other
windows, apart from the disputed windows, available
for ventilation. In my opinion, the trial Court has
rightly rejected the application by the impugned
order which requires no interference by this Court in
writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore,
fails and is dismissed as such.
:2:
(D.B.Bhosale, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the trial Court's rejection of the petitioner-defendant's application for appointment of a court commissioner.
Gangadhar Dagdu Mali
Vithal Hari Mali
Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court