Dismissed

Satya Narayan v. Santosh Devi

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2018CW/15744/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the trial court's appointment of a Commissioner to ascertain factual position regarding a disputed site, arguing the defendant's admission rendered it unnecessary. The High Court held that while the appointment might have been uncalled for due to the admission, it refused to interfere under Article 227 as no prejudice was caused.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the writ petition; no appointment of Commissioner set aside; writ jurisdiction not exercised.

Satya Narayan Vs Santosh Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15744/2018

¶3

Satya Narayan S/o Ram Das, Aged About 54 Years, B/c Kansara, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District - Balotra (Raj.) (First Defendant In Trial Court)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Santosh Devi W/o Devendra Kumar, Aged About 47 Years, B/c Kansara, Regarpura, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.) (Plaintiff in Trial Court)

¶7

Municipal Council, Balotra, District - Barmer Through (a) Commissioner, Municipal Council, Balotra.

¶8

(b) Chairman, Municipal Council, Balotra (Second Defendant in Trial Court)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr.	M. M. Dhera.
For Respondent(s)	:	-

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

08/10/2018

¶14

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.9.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge, Balotra, District Barmer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) whereby it had appointed a Commissioner for ascertaining the factual position of the disputed site.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed an error in appointing Commissioner while completely ignoring the admission made by defendant to the effect that possession of the disputed property vested with the plaintiff. He also contended that in view of the admission made by

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-15744/2018]

¶18

the defendant, there was no necessity of appointing Commissioner.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the admission made by the defendant, the trial Court was not required to appoint Commissioner.

¶20

Be that as it may, once the Commissioner has been appointed and he has visited the site, this Court refuses to exercise its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, notwithstanding the prima-facie view that appointment of Commissioner was uncalled for.

¶21

The writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.

¶22

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶23

A.Arora/-121.

Satya Narayan v. Santosh Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan v. Santosh Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashoda Vs Smt. Veenu Gupta (Father Name Unknown)

Smt Sajju Vs K.K. Sharma and Ors.

Smt. Veena Ben Vs K.K. Sharma and Ors.

Chunnilal and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar

Dinesh Jakhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Virendra Pal Singh Vs Sharankirat Singh