This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a plaintiff's application to examine a Court Commissioner. The court held the Trial Court's decision correct given that plaintiff had closed evidence while defendant was examining witnesses.
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.
wp2583-13.sxw
pvr
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2583 OF 2013
Mr.Vishwas Anant Masurkar. ... Petitioner V/s. Mr.Krishna Dhaku Bandkar. ... Respondent ---
Mr.Pradeep Samant, for Petitioner.
CORAM : R.M.SAVANT , J. DATE : 15th APRIL , 2013.
P.C. :
dated 2.11.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malvan, by which order the Application at Exhibit 89 filed by the plaintiff for examining the Court Commissioner, came to be rejected.
pvr 2/2 wp2583-13.sxw
stated cannot be found fault with. No case for interference is therefore made out.
The above writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R.M.SAVANT, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to examine a Court Commissioner during the evidence recording stage.
Mr. Vishwas Anant Masurkar
Mr. Krishna Dhaku Bandkar
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
