Umashankar Baburao Samshette v. Vimalbai Virbhadra Kaijkar and Ors.
Bombay HCWP/297/2011
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The High Court at Aurangabad rejected Writ Petition No. 297 of 2011 and held that it did not notice any jurisdictional error. The petitioner's counsel had not completed their argument in the brief text available subject to liberty to move again.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
1
¶2
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
¶3
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
¶4
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
¶5
WRIT PETITION NO.: 297 OF 2011
¶6
***
¶7
1.Heard Advocate Mr. Dharashive for
Petitioner. The application moved by the
defendant for appointment of Commissioner has
been rejected by the Court below, after
noticing that effort was only to collect
evidence. Learned counsel points out that
¶8
plaintiff also had given a sort of no
objectionforappointmentofsuch
¶9
Commissioner.
¶10
2.I do not notice any jurisdictional
¶11
error. However, with liberty to parties to
move again in case of any confusion, writ
petition is rejected.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court