High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Appointment of Commissioner at Appellate Stage in Suit for Declaration, Possession and Mesne Profits — Held that Order 26 Rule 9 CPC does not bar appointment of Commissioner at appellate stage if necessary for just adjudication.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration, possession of encroached portion and mesne profits in respect of 8R of land out of Survey No.78 (gut no.369) at Hatta, Taluka Basmath. They claimed that they sold 1H and 40R to respondent no.1, which was converted into plots through a sanctioned layout and distributed to members of Bhagyanagar Grah Sanstha. The dispute pertains to 8R of land allegedly not sold and encroached by defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit on 17.07.2015. The petitioners preferred appeal RCA No.47/2015. During the appeal, they filed application Exhibit-89 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the suit property and submit a report. The appellate court rejected the application on 03.08.2022. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court held that Order 26 Rule 9 CPC does not bar appointment of Commissioner at the appellate stage. The appellate court has discretion to appoint a Commissioner if necessary for just adjudication. The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application, directing the appellate court to appoint a Commissioner as prayed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appointment of Commissioner at Appellate Stage - Order 26 Rule 9 CPC - The appellate court has discretion to appoint a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC even at the appellate stage if it is necessary for just adjudication of the dispute. The trial court had dismissed the suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits. The appellate court rejected the application for appointment of Commissioner. The High Court set aside the order and allowed the application, holding that the appellate court can appoint a Commissioner to elucidate matters in dispute. (Paras 7-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellate court can appoint a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the appellate stage for the purpose of elucidating matters in dispute.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge 1, Basmathnagar in RCA No.47/2015, and directed the appellate court to appoint a Commissioner as prayed in Exhibit-89.

Law Points

  • Order 26 Rule 9 CPC
  • appointment of Commissioner at appellate stage
  • just adjudication
  • discretion of appellate court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (12) 16

WRIT PETITION NO. 13290 OF 2022

2023-12-08

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

2023:BHC-AUG:26155

Mr. Milind M. Patil (Beedkar) for Petitioners, Mr. P. N. Sonpethkar for Respondent Nos.1, 2-1 to 2-4, 3, 4-1, 4-2 & 5 to 7

Rawanbapu s/o Bhimrao Deshmukh and others

Bapurao s/o Rangrao Deshmukh and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for declaration, possession of encroached portion and mesne profits.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners (original plaintiffs) sought appointment of a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC at the appellate stage to inspect the suit property and submit a report.

Filing Reason

The trial court dismissed the suit; during appeal, the petitioners sought appointment of a Commissioner to elucidate matters in dispute.

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed the suit on 17.07.2015; appellate court rejected application for appointment of Commissioner on 03.08.2022.

Issues

Whether the appellate court can appoint a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC at the appellate stage.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that appointment of Commissioner is necessary for just adjudication and that Order 26 Rule 9 CPC does not bar such appointment at appellate stage. Respondents opposed the application.

Ratio Decidendi

Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not prohibit the appointment of a Commissioner at the appellate stage. The appellate court has discretion to appoint a Commissioner if it is necessary for just adjudication of the dispute.

Judgment Excerpts

Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar appointment of Commissioner at the appellate stage. The appellate court has discretion to appoint a Commissioner if it is necessary for just adjudication of the dispute.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed RCS No.25/2010 which was dismissed on 17.07.2015. They preferred RCA No.47/2015. During the appeal, they filed application Exhibit-89 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Commissioner. The appellate court rejected the application on 03.08.2022. The petitioners challenged that order in the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.13290 of 2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 26 Rule 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Appointment of Commissioner at Appellate Stage in Suit for Declaration, Possession and Mesne Profits — Held that Order 26 Rule 9 CPC does not bar appointment of Commissioner at appellate stage if necessary ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Mutation Entry in Property Dispute — Petitioners Failed to Establish Title or Possession. Court Held That Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Title and That Civil Suit Is Appropriate Remedy for Titl...