Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 45]

Bombay High Court

Mahadev Vaijanath Bembalge Through Gpa ... vs Chandrakala Ramesh Athane on 4 June, 2018

Author: Sunil P. Deshmukh

Bench: Sunil P. Deshmukh

                                     1                            WP 832-2018

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO. 832 of 2018


 Mahadev S/o Vaijanath Bembalge
 age 30 yers occupation service
 R/o Udgir Taluka Udgir District Latur
 Through General Power of Attorney holder
 Rajkumar S/o Viranna Tanshette,
 age 45 years occupation service
 R/o Basweshwar Galli, Udgir
 Taluka Udgir District Latur.
                                                      ...Petitioner
                 VERSUS

 Chandrakala W/o Ramesh Athane,
 age 52 years occupation household
 R/o Samatanagar, Udgir Taluka Udgir District latur.
                                               ...Respondent



 Mr Anand V. Patil Indrale, Advocate for petitioner
 Mr Ashwin V. Sakolkar, Advocate, holding for Mr V.G. Sakolkar,
   Advocate for respondent.


                                   CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                   DATE    : 4th June, 2018


  ORDER :

Present writ petition purports to impugn order dated 10th November 2017 passed on Exhibit 58 by learned III Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udgir, where-under request of appointment of Court Commissioner is rejected. It may be pertinent to note ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2018 00:59:16 ::: 2 WP 832-2018 that the petitioner had not led his evidence while application for appointment of Court Commissioner has been made which is rejected. In the circumstances, it appears that the application had been premature.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the Trial Court has framed issues in the suit and evidence has been led. In view of the developments, he submits that without undermining liberty to make further application at proper stage, petition may be disposed of. Learned Counsel for the respondent has no particular objection to proposal.

3. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty as requested.

(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH), JUDGE.

Madkar ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2018 00:59:16 :::