The High Court at Patna, in a civil miscellaneous proceeding, refused interfere with the subordinate court's rejection of an application for appointing a pleader commissioner to verify the suit plot title, noting that evidence had not started.
Civil Misc. application 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 MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.50 of 2017
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar
.... .... Appellant/s Versus Shaili Devi & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
Perused the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 passed by Sub Judge VIIth, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No.675 of 2013 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for appointment of pleader commissioner for verification of the suit plot.
It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff-respondent has filed the suit for declaration of title giving the description of the suit property in the plaint. Evidence has not yet been started. The defendants raised the question about the identity of the suit land and then filed application for appointment of pleader commissioner. Considering all these aspects, the Court below has said that the parties are required to prove their respective case and evidence has not yet started. Thus I find no reason to interfere with
the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this Civil Misc. application is dismissed.
Sanjeev/U T
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the subordinate court correctly rejected the application for appointment of pleader commissioner for verification of suit property before evidence began.
Whether the subordinate court was justified in holding that parties must prove their case before such an appointment.
Jitendra Kumar
Shaili Devi
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
