The Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for issuance of a commission under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. The court found no illegality or impropriety and did not interfere.
The writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage; no order as to cost.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 603 of 2015
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner – Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.8 – Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer, on advance notice. For Respondents 1 to 7 – None, not noticed.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
Order on Board
01/12/2015
the Court below in Civil Suit No.11A/2013 (Manuram Vs. Vinod Kumar and
Others) vide order dated 04-04-2015 whereby the prayer made by the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.1 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for issuance of commission has been rejected.
Sd/-
(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE
Aadil
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the application for issuance of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC by the Court below warrants interference in a writ petition.
Whether there is any illegality or impropriety committed by the Court below in dismissing the interim application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manuram
Vinod Kumar
Khageshram
Maheshram
Pritam
Amarlal
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
