Allowed

Narayan S/O Rajaram Gadhe v. Narahari S/O Totaram Sultane

Bombay HC5 Sept 2024WP/4558/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Joint Civil Judge's rejection of an application for a Court Commissioner. The High Court quashed the order, noting the absence of a finding on necessity, and directed the trial Court to decide afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the application for appointment of Court Commissioner is set aside and the trial Court directed to decide the application afresh.

Narayan S/O Rajaram Gadhe Vs Narahari S/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

81-wp-4558-24(j).odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (WP) No. 4558 of 2024

¶5

Narayan S/o Rajaram Gadhe Versus

¶6

Narahari S/o Totaram Sultane

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Court's or Judge's Order

¶9

Shri A.V.Bhide, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri NB.Karade, Advocate for the respondent.

¶10

CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J. DATED : 5^th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶11

This petition takes exception to the order dated 27^th June, 2024 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shegaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 2019.

¶12

The petitioner herein has filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction.

¶13

By the order impugned the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was moved with a view to

¶15

SKNair

¶16

2 81-wp-4558-24(j).odt

¶17

bring on record only physical features of the suit properties. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has, however, rejected the application on erroneous ground.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence of the parties is over and the suit is at the stage of final argument. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has, thus, rightly rejected the application.

¶19

I have perused the impugned order. The learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has already examined four witnesses in support of his case and the suit is at the stage of final argument. However, there is no finding that considering the nature of dispute between the parties there is no need of appointment of court commissioner as sought. The order impugned therefore cannot be allowed to stand and the same is set aside. The learned trial Court shall decide the application at Exhibit 55 afresh in accordance with law.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid

¶21

terms.

¶22

SKNair

Narayan S/O Rajaram Gadhe v. Narahari S/O Totaram Sultane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan S/O Rajaram Gadhe v. Narahari S/O Totaram Sultane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay S/O. Gurudayal Batra and Anr. Vs the Collector, Nagpur and Others

Ishwar Krushnaji Ragit Vs Annirudha Suryaprakash Meshram and Another

Gopalkrushna Fisheries Co-Operative Society, Yavatmal Vs State of Maha. Thr. Commissioner, Dept. of Fisheries, Mumbai and Others

Kiran Yuwraj Bhilare vs State of Maharashtra

Gopichand Ramlal Bishnoi vs State of Maharashtra

Uttam Kalu Chavan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra