Dismissed

Ishwarappa Mahilingappa Dongre, L.R. Ashok v. Dashrath Vishwanath Salunke and Others

Bombay HC12 Jan 2015WP/1246/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to appoint a lawyer as a Court Commissioner under Order XVI Rule 9 CPC. The court held that no illegality existed as the facts were distinct from referenced precedents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ishwarappa Mahilingappa Dongre, L.R. Ashok Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

(1) W.P. No.1246 /2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1246 OF 2014

¶4

Ishwarappa s/o Mahalingappa Dongre, deceased, through his L.Rs. -

¶5

Ashok s/o Ishwarappa Dongre, Age : 63 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Tapneshwar Road, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER (Orig. Plaintiff)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Dashrath s/o Vishwanath Salunke, Age : 54 years, Occu. S.T. Driver

¶8

Ganesh s/o Dashrath Salunke, Age : 34 years, Occu. Business,

¶9

All R/o Opp. New S.T. Stand, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶10

Mahadev s/o Shankar Gavhanem Age : 49 years, Occu. Business, R/o C/o Gavhane Electrical, Nagar Road, Dist. Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS (Original Defendants)

¶11

Mr Niteen V. Gaware, Advocate for petitioner; Mr M.S. Bhosale, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2

¶12

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶13

DATE : 12^th January, 2015

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

(2) W.P. No.1246 /2014

¶16

By the present writ petition, the petitioner/original plaintiff, challenges the order dated 3rd January, 2014, passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Jamkhed, below Exh.195, in Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2003.

¶17

The petitioner herein has instituted the above referred suit seeking relief of perpetual and mandatory injunction against the respondents/original defendants. In the said suit, the petitioner preferred application Exh.195 seeking appointment of Court Commissioner and it was prayed that a Lawyer be appointed as Court Commissioner. The petitioner has urged that the requirement of appointment of Court Commissioner is very much necessary so as to find out, whether there exists a way/road between the properties of the petitioner and respondents. According to him, an application preferred under Order XVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be allowed when there exists a dispute as regards encroachment.

¶18

In support of his contentions, Mr Gaware, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup & ors ., reported in 2008 (8) SCC 671 and the judgment of this Court in the

¶19

(3) W.P. No.1246 /2014

¶20

matter of Habibkhan Inauttalakhan & ors. vs. Waman Govind Rathod & ors. , reported in 2012 (6) Bom. C.R. 379 .

¶21

Perusal of the impugned order discloses that earlier the petitioner/plaintiff had filed application Exh.180, seeking appointment of Taluka Inspector of Land Records as Court Commissioner, which was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 1st August 2013, as the suit property was not subjected to city survey. The second default on the part of the petitioner was in not examining the Gramsevak, who was summoned as a witness on behalf of the petitioner and he has filed a purshis Exh.197 that he does not want to examine the said witness. After the above two events, the petitioner has filed application Exh.195 seeking appointment of a Lawyer as a Court Commissioner, which came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶22

Perusal of the impugned order further discloses that the learned Trial Court has given cogent reasons in support of rejection of application Exh.195. The facts of the present case as are narrated and reflected in the impugned order and the facts involved in the reported decisions (cited supra) are altogether different.

¶23

(4) W.P. No.1246 /2014

¶24

In the light of what has been stated above, no illegality is noticed in the impugned order. Thus, the writ petition fails and same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶25

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶26

amj

Ishwarappa Mahilingappa Dongre, L.R. Ashok v. Dashrath Vishwanath Salunke and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwarappa Mahilingappa Dongre, L.R. Ashok v. Dashrath Vishwanath Salunke and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Dodha Koli. Vs Gatlu Jayram Koli.

Govardhan Gabbulal Marmath Lrs Meerabai and Others Vs Rangnath Vithoba Shirsat and Others

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Thr. Its Registrar Vs Ahemad Khan

Kailas Shravan Marathe Vs the Pachora Municipal Council, Pachora, Jalgaon

Mukund Sawalarampant Ruikar Vs Chandrakant Dattatray Ruikar and Others

Balasaheb Uttam Katore and Others Vs Shobha Balasaheb Katore and Another