This oral order dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Sub Judge's order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record the deposition of an elderly respondent, finding no illegality or irregularity.
Writ application under Article 227 dismissed; order of Sub Judge appointing Advocate Commissioner remains valid.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5679 of 2013
====================================================== 1. Abdul Hadi S/O Late Abdul Hai Resident Of Village- Bhagwanpur, P.S.Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. Mathura Prasad Singh S/O Late Mangal Singh R/O Village- Dhanaiya, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur 3. Prabhat Karan Singh S/O Ram Charitar Singh R/O Vill. And P.O.Paharpur, P.S.- Sahabganj, District- Muzaffarpur
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 19-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General No.12 for the respondent-State of Bihar.
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned SubJudge-IV, Muzaffarpur in T. S. No. 24 of 1985, whereby he has allowed the prayer for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for recording the deposition of respondent no.1 of the title suit who has been impleaded as respondent no.2 in the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.5679 of 2013 (2) dt.19-06-2013
2 / 3
application.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 mis-represented himself to be an old person and he in fact had filed an affidavit on oath for his deposition in the trial Court on 23.1.2012. He submits that respondent no.2 is the main person against whom several allegations have been made and he could be the witness of the case had he been examined in the Court. He submits that there were no sufficient ground for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.
This is not in dispute that respondent no.1 is an old person nearly 85 years of age. The Court below on the basis of the assertion in the petition and other materials available on record particularly in view of the doctor’s prescription, advicing him bed rest, allowed the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for recording of deposition of respondent no.1.
It is not the submission of the learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.5679 of 2013 (2) dt.19-06-2013
3 / 3
counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it which could have warranted interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. This application is accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Arun Kumar/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Sub Judge was justified in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record the deposition of an elderly respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Hadi
The State Of Bihar
Mathura Prasad Singh
Prabhat Karan Singh
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
