Dismissed

Dattu Laxman Gaikwad (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Sunil Judomal Kukreja and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2023WP/10360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging the rejection of a fresh appointment of a Court Commissioner in an injunction suit was dismissed. The court held that once a Commissioner is appointed for possession disputes, a fresh appointment is not required, thus the Trial Court's order was not perverse.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Dattu Laxman Gaikwad (Since Decd.) through… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

19-wp-10360-2023.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10360 OF 2023

¶5

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE

¶6

Digitally signed by NIKITAKAILAS DARADE Date: 2023.08.23 12:14:00 +0530

¶7

Dattu Laxman Gaikwad (Since Decd.) Thr. LRS. And Ors. … Petitioners V/s.

¶8

Sunil Judomal Kukreja and Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Kedar P. Lad, for the Petitioners. Mr. C.D. Mali, AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 22, 2023

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The petitioner is original plaintiff who has filed suit for injunction against defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 not to disturb his possession over the suit property.

¶13

Initially Court commissioner was appointed to bring on record factual position of the suit property. The Court Commissioner inspected the suit property and submitted his report.

¶14

The petitioner filed an application alleging that the report filed by the Court Commissioner is in collusion with defendant and therefore action under the provisions of the Contempt of Court’s Act 1971, needs to be initiated.

¶15

¶16

19-wp-10360-2023.doc

¶17

Said application was rejected by the Trial Court. Again, similar application was filed by the plaintiff which was also rejected by the Trial Court.

¶18

The petitioner thereafter, filed present application for appointment of Court commissioner which came to be rejected by impugned order.

¶19

The learned advocate for the applicant states that such appointment is necessary in the interest of justice. However, on perusal of the suit and the material placed on record, it is clear that the Court commissioner has already submitted its report. The evidentiary value of such report is a matter which needs to be decided by the Trial Court during hearing of the suit.

¶20

However, once in a suit for injunction, restraining defendants from disturbing possession of the plaintiff, Court Commissioner is appointed, there cannot be fresh appointment of such Commissioner. In that view, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court cannot be termed as perverse hence interference under Article 227 is called for.

¶21

The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Dattu Laxman Gaikwad (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Sunil Judomal Kukreja and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattu Laxman Gaikwad (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Sunil Judomal Kukreja and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atit Deven Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Devkisan Bhutda Vs Yuvraj Vasant Salve and Ors.

Rajesh @ Pandit Kamal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nalanda Enterprise Vs Mohan Bhikaji Dongre and Anr.

Nalanda Enterprise Vs Mohan Bhikaji Dongre and Anr.

Kishore Baldev Ahuja Vs M/S. Shanti Construction and Ors.