Allowed

Waman Fakira Burud v. Ramesh Maruti Dhapse and Others

Bombay HC18 Jul 2023WP/3724/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the allowance of an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner before evidence was recorded. The High Court held that such applications should not be allowed before evidence conclusion and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the impugned order allowing the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner.

Waman Fakira Burud Vs Ramesh Maruti Dhapse and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

973-WP-3724-23

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3724 OF 2023

¶5

Waman Fakira Burud .... Petitioner Versus

¶6

Ramesh Maruti Dhapse and others .... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. M.K. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7

¶8

[ CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 18^th JULY, 2023

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

Order passed by 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,

¶11

Gangakhed, below Exhibit-12 in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 2022 is impugned in the present petition.

¶12

In the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration and injunction, after filing of the written statement by the petitioner/defendant, Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed for appointment of Court Commissioner. Despite the opposition on the part of the petitioner/defendant, the said Application is allowed. Hence, the present petition.

1 of 2

973-WP-3724-23

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition memo, annexures thereto, and the impugned order.

¶17

This Court has taken consistent view that application for appointment of the Court Commissioner should not be allowed before conclusion of recording of the evidence. In the present case, admittedly, the Application is allowed at initial stage. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the present petition cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

¶18

Impugned order dated 11/01/2023 passed by learned 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangakhed, below Exhibit-12 in Regular Civil Suit No.08 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶19

The parties are at liberty to move application for appointment of Court Commissioner after recording of evidence is concluded in the Trial Court. At that stage, if such application is preferred, the same shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by the order impugned in the present petition.

¶20

[ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE

¶21

S.P. Rane

¶22

2 of 2

Waman Fakira Burud v. Ramesh Maruti Dhapse and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waman Fakira Burud v. Ramesh Maruti Dhapse and Others

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

The Superintending Engineer Nanded Patbandhare Mandal and Others Vs Ramdas Govind Bhand

Rukhminibai Janardan Rahinj and Another Vs Vitthal Balwant Bhavar and Others

Vinod Panjabrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Popat Gawali Since Deceased Hence Thr Lrs Smt. Sushilabai Ramesh Gawali and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector Dhule Alias the Competent Authority and Others

Maroti Baburao Biradar and Another Vs Kalavati Ramrao Kaname and Others

Khare Tarkunde Sancheti Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thr Managing Director Manohar Ramchandra Tarkunde Vs Balaji Hiraman Barse Since Deceased through Lrs Pandminibai Balaji Barse and Another