In an application under Article 227 seeking quashing of an order rejecting a petition for appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, the High Court held that it is within the appellate court's discretion to decline additional evidence. The application was dismissed.
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.7103 of 2013 In C.R. 871 of 2009 ====================================================== Ramdeo Sahani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Nandan Sah @ Ram Nandan Sah & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 03-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is an application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge-FTC No.3, Muzaffarpur in Title Appeal No. 45 of 2001, whereby the learned Court below has rejected a petition filed by the petitioner for appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner for the purpose of measurement of R.S. Plot No. 2673 which is part of the suit property.
Without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is purely upon discretion of the appellate Court to direct for production of additional evidence if it is so required to enable the appellate Court to pronounce the judgment. From the impugned order it would appear that the Court
below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has come to a conclusion that such report of the Advocate Commissioner is not required as the material for proper disposal of appeal are already available on record.
The impugned order, in my opinion, cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Arun Kumar/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the appellate court's discretion to reject a petition for appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner under Article 227.
Whether the impugned order rejecting additional evidence can be quashed in supervisory jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramdeo Sahani
Nandan Sah @ Ram Nandan Sah & Ors
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
