Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 54 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Jaswant Kaur vs Din Dayal on 16 November, 2012

Bhagwat Narayan Dueby vs Kalicharan on 10 March, 2022

order deserves appropriate interference. In the application filed before the trial court, the petitioner-plaintiff has stated that the case of respondent-defendants was that the map filed by petitioner-plaintiff is false and they are constructing a new room in the land vacant between the houses of petitioner-plaintiff and respondents-defendants which is causing blockage in the plaintiff's drain, whereas, the respondents- defendants have stated in their reply before the trial court that they are making construction only in the land allotted to them. Thus, in this case there is dispute regarding the boundaries of the lands of the petitioner-plaintiff and respondents-defendants and, such issue can be ascertained by appointing a Commission under Order XXVI rule 9 of the CPC. Though the object of local investigation is not to collect the evidence which can be taken in the court but the purpose is to obtain such evidence, which, from its peculiar nature with a view to elucidate any point which is left doubtful in the evidence produced before the Court. This court has considered the scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC and in the matter of Jaswant Vs. Deen Dayal2, and has held that when there is dispute about demarcation of the property and its identity and both the parties are claiming it to be their own, it is incumbent upon the court itself to issue a Commission.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Triyuginarayan Dwivedi vs Narendra Kumar Dwivedi on 3 February, 2023

16. So far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellants passed in Haryana Waqf Board (supra) and Jaswant (supra) are concerned, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, on an application filed by the defendant, a local Commissioner was appointed and after receiving the report and considering the objection by the parties, the report of local Commissioner has been accepted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Smt. Shakuntala vs Smt. Kamajahan Dead Through Lrs Kasim ... on 2 December, 2024

10. Although no application was filed for demarcation by any of the parties to the litigation, but in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreepat vs. Rajendra Prasad, 2000(6) Supreme 389 = JT 2000 (7) SC 379 as well as in the light of decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jaswant vs. Deen Dayal, 2011 (2) MPLJ 576, it was duty of the Court to resolve the dispute of boundaries/location of the suit land, especially in the light of findings 6 RP-800-2023 recorded by competent civil Court in para 28 of the judgment and decree dtd.14.08.2015 (Ex.P/16).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document

Shri. Kawadu S/O Marotrao Injmulwar vs Shri. Vijay Hiraswami on 11 February, 2019

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jaswant vs Deen Dayal, reported at 2011 (4) Civil LJ 78, contending that in similar circumstances the Court had permitted appointment of Court Commissioner. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the moot question that arose in the said case was as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant was the owner of the suit property. Since both the parties were claiming ownership to the same property, which was the suit property in the said case it becomes clear that the facts of the present case are materially different from that of the case on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied. Therefore, the said judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, would be of no assistance to the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Bhanta S/O Nandkishore Deceased ... vs Banwari Lal Sharma on 19 September, 2019

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment reported in 1998 MPWN SN 40, Kamlesh Sharma (Smt.) Vs. Komal Chand Kesharwani; 1975 JLJ 340, Durga Prasad vs. 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P.No.4121/2019 (Bhanta Vs. Banwari Lal Sharma & others) Praveen Foujdar and Ors.; 2008 (4) MPHT 306 (SC), Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and others; 2011 (3) MPHT 422, Jaswant Vs. Deen Dayal and 2003 (3) MPHT 347, Heeralal Vs. Thakurdas to contend that identity of land in dispute is to be ascertained by appointment of Commission. Moreover by allowing the application, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ajgar Singh vs Pradhanmantri Gramin Sadak Yojna Unit ... on 22 October, 2020

Admittedly, none of the parties moved an application for appointment of Commissioner prior to adjudication of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. But instead of non suiting the petitioners only on this ground, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice demands that the petitioners can be granted one more opportunity to move necessary application for appointment of the Commissioner. My view is fortified by judgment passed by this Court in the case of Jaswant Vs. Deen Dayal reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 576, in which it has been held as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next