A civil revision petition challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner via local inspection in an injunction suit. The High Court dismissed the revision, finding no ground for interference with the lower court's exercise of discretion.
Revision petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5146 OF 2010
ORDER:
The petitioner herein is defendant, filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interalia assailing the order allowing the application purported to have been filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suti schedule property.
Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that no doubt the suit is for mere injunction, however, having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner in respect of the constructions having been made, there is nothing wrong in making such an exercise of local inspection and ultimately the report as such would go in the long way in assisting the Court in passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the circumstances, having regard to the discretion exercised by the Court below, there is no reason, warranting interference of this Court. The revision fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs.
_______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J
DATE: 3.12.2010 TVK
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5146 OF 2010
DATE: 3.12.2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect schedule property in a suit for injunction?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
B PRAKASH RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
