Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.74 seconds)
Documents citing Harihar Misra vs Narhari Setti Sitaramiah And Anr. on 2 April, 1965

Basanta Kumar Swain vs Baidya Kumar Parida And Ors. on 17 July, 1987

In ILR (1966) Cuttack 412 (A. Satyanarayana Naidu v. Sarbeswar Das) it was observed that the defendant could have measured the land privately by an expert and in that view the Court can assist him to make available the services of such an expert as requested by the defendant when he was prepared to pay the cost whose report would not be evidence as provided in Order 26, Rule 10, C.P.C. In ILR (1965) Cut 585 : (AIR 1966 Orissa 121) (Harihar Misra v. Narahari Setti Sitaramiah) where the report of the Commissioner was accepted, and became a piece of evidence under Order 26, Rule 10, C.P.C., it was observed that a party can countermand the effect of the Commissioner's report by giving any other evidence.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

New Meena Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Lko ... vs Addl.District Judge,Ct.No.2 Lko & Ors. ... on 8 April, 2016

" This Court in two decisions reported in Harihar Mishra Vs. Narahari Setti Sitaramiah and another, AIR 1966 Ori 121 and Satyanarayan Naidu and another Vs. Sarbeswar Das I.L.R. 1966 Cutt. 412 held that the report of the Commissioner is only a piece of evidence which is not conclusive and parties can adduce evidence of experts engaged by them. Accepting the said principle , I am of the view that the court should not issue writs to commissioners where parties can themselves get the evidence on the points for which they seek a commissioner to be deputed."
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

L. Srinivasan Chettiar vs L. Santhanam Chettiar on 12 April, 1997

It had been held in a decision reported in Harihar Misra v. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah and Anr., in the case of "Rule 10 of Order 26 does not make the report of the Commissioner as concluding the question of valuation. On the contrary, the rule gives clear indication that the report of the Commissioner is only one of the pieces of evidence amongst other evidence to be led by the parties for determination of the issue on valuation of the suit. When the parties file no objection to the Commissioner's report, the court rightly accepts the report. Its acceptance by itself does not, however, mean that parties are precluded from challenging the evidence of the Commissioner and the witness is examined by him or by giving any other evidence to countermand and the effect of the Commissioner's report."
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chennappan vs Vedichi on 13 February, 2013

17.It is for the Revision Petitioners to make out a case subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, in this regard. Even if a Court of Law rejects the objection of the parties in regard to the report of an Advocate Commissioner, that is not the end of the matter. The parties are entitled to request the Court to consider the evidence as per the decision in Harihar Mistra V. Narhari, AIR 1966 Orissa at page 121. If the Court or any of the parties requires that Advocate Commissioner to examine in regard to the contents of his report which require proper elucidation, then, the Court is at its own discretion to permit the parties or it can itself suo motu examine the Advocate Commissioner as Court Witness.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document
1   2 Next