Dismissed
Mohammed Akmal Rizvi v. Mamta Yadav
Chhattisgarh HCMCC/398/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet MCC…
What the court decided
AI extract
OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet MCC…
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.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
MCC No. 398 of 2018
Mohammed Akmal Rizvi S/o Haji Mohammad Alanoor Aged About 45 Years R/o Indira Ward, Near Head Post Office, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
| 18.05.2018 | Mr. Adil Minhaj, counsel for the applicant. |
|---|---|
| Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submits that summons were issued to doctor to prove the mental condition of the husband of the defendant. Consequently, the summons were issued to the doctor but the doctor has refused to come and thereafter the defendants filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C., to record the statements of the doctor through the commission and the plaintiff has filed reply to the said application, however, the trial Court has rejected the said application by order dated 02.02.2017. The defendants have challenged the said order in W.P(227) No.211 of 2018 wherein this Court has passed the order dated 13.3.2018 allowing the application and directed the trial Court to appoint the Commissioner for recording the evidence. Perused the order dated 13.3.2018 and documents annexed to the petition. The order has been passed to examine the doctor on commission allowing the application under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC as the doctor was residing beyond |
| the jurisdiction of the court and it was further directed that a local commissioner be appointed by the trial court for recording the evidence. I do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff by the said order as it only allows a doctor to be examined on commission. The petitioner/ plaintiff shall have at liberty to cross-examine the doctor to eliminate the facts and on only on technical grounds the order cannot be recalled. Accordingly the petition has no merit and is dismissed. |
|
|---|---|
| R a o | Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE |
MOHAMMED AKMAL RIZVI
MAMTA YADAV
ANCHAL YADAV
SIDDHARTH YADAV
GOUTAM BHADURI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court