Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.14 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors vs Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors on 11 December, 2007
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & others vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others, reported in CDJ 2007 SC 1339, has held that the learned trial Judge may appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of taking measurement of the suit land.
R.V. Ramalingam vs Abdul Muthaliff on 14 December, 1992
In R.V.Ramalingam vs. Abdul Muthaliff, reported in CDJ 1992 MHC 087, His Lordship AR.Lakshmanan, J, has held that on the ground that the tenant has substantially damaged the back portion of the building and is also attempting to unauthorisedly put up some construction and in view of the attitude of the tenant, it was found necessary to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to make a local inspection of the building and to note down the physical features of the building and the structure thereon and submit a report to the Court with plan and accordingly, the application was found to be maintainable under Section 18 (A) of the Act.
M.P. Appulu vs A. Fatima Zohra And Anr. on 15 April, 1982
In M.P.Appulu vs. A.Fatima Zohra & another, reported in 1982 (2) MLJ 340, His Lordship T.Sathiadev, J, has held that "There are circumstances in which, it is only a Commissioner inspecting the property promptly and recording timely assessment of what obtains relating to the building, could alone assist courts to decide correctly. If such prompt actions are not taken, it may destroy the valuable rights of the parties. It may so happen, when a landlord high-handedly starts pulling down a portion of the main building, the tenant would be greatly interested in securing a Commissioner appointed forthwith. If the right of tenant to have access to stair-case is obstructed, he is most interested in seeking appointment of Commissioner and secure immediate relief, for restoring amenities, which is assured to him under Section 17 of the Act." His Lordship T.Sathiadev, J, while interpreting Section 18 (A) of the Act held that if application for appointment of Commissioner is not properly understood and appreciated and resulted in dismissal of the application; to hold that an appeal would not lie, which would result in taking away the affected party's right, which is enshrined in the Act itself.
Padam Sen And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 September, 1960
In Padam Sen and another vs. The State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218, three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Court has no inherent power under Section 151 to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to seize account books in the possession of the plaintiff, upon an application by the defendant that he has apprehension that they would be tampered with. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the Court cannot seize them forcibly by appointing an Advocate-Commissioner, but it can summon them and if not produced, it can penalise the party and also draw adverse presumption against him. If the documents are forged, while in the possession of the plaintiff, the defendant can prove the forgeries and dispute the entries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that it is not the business of the Court to collect evidence in favour of one party.
Chandrasekaran S/O. Malla Munuswamy ... vs V. Doss Naidu S/O. Late Veeriah Naidu on 29 June, 2005
In Chandrasekaran vs. Doss Naidu, reported in 2005 (3) MLJ 473, Her Lordship R.Banumathi, J has held that though appointment of Advocate-Commissioner was sought for under the pretext of noting down the physical features, indirectly it was only to find out the factum of possession. As the material issue involved in the suit relating to the nature of possession and lawful right of the parties, it was held that the material issue of determining the possession cannot be left to an Advocate-Commissioner.
T.K.Krishnamurthy vs Tamil Nadu Water on 28 July, 2006
In Krishnamurthy, T.K vs. Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, reported in 2006 (5) CTC 178, His Lordship S.Rajeswaran, J has held that Advocate-Commissioner should not be appointed to gather evidence to prove the case of parties, since the parties should prove their case by letting in legally acceptable evidence and the report of the Commissioner can only aid the Court in evaluating the evidence to come to just conclusion.
A. Nagarajan vs A. Madhanakumar on 10 January, 1996
In A.Nagarajan vs. A.Madhanakumar, reported in CDJ 1996 MHC 497, His Lordship Shivappa, J held that for the purpose of elucidating facts in respect of any matter in dispute where the circumstances render it expedient in the interest of justice to do so, the Court has power, which is discretionary in nature, to appoint Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining, certain facts, to make it clear, intelligible and to throw light upon the matter in issue, relating to the main case as well as the facts leading to the dispute.
M.Vedapuri vs O.M.Raj on 14 October, 2008
In M.Vedapuri vs. O.M.Raj and another, reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 4400, this Court (S.TAMILVANAN, J), based on the Advocate-Commissioner's report and plan marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2 held that the petition premises therein was not properly maintained due to the waste and left out of the chicken meat stall found at the premises and was emanating bad and foul smell in an unhygienic condition.