Vikram Subhash Patil Savardekar v. Smt. Suvarnlata Rajaram Kharatmal And ORS

Neeta S.

Sawant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Neeta S. Sawant Date: 2021.03.16 14:50:55 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 8491 / 2019 Vikram Shubhash Patil Savardekar .. Petitioner Vs.

Smt. Suvarnlata Rajaram Kharatmal & Ors.

.. Respondents **** Mr. Shubham Kanade i/by Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ms. Tanvi Tapkire, Advocate for Respondent No.1 to 6. **** CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : 15 th MARCH, 2021.

P.C. : - 1.

Petitioner's application preferred under Order-26, Rule-9 read with Section 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected by the learned 4 th Joint Civil Judge, Division Bench, Sangli. Feeling aggrieved, he preferred the Writ Petition under Najeeb 1/3

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is Defendant in the Regular Civil Suit No. 437/2015, instituted by the Respondents. While Plaintifs were under cross-examination, Defendant had fled an application below Exhibit-63 for appointment of the Court Commissioner to conduct the local investigation.

2.

Perused the application and the impugned order. It is not an object of Order-26, Rule-9 to assist the party to collect evidence, where a party can get the evidence itself. The Petitioner sought appointment of the Court Commissioner, to bring on record details/ particulars of adjoining properties, its measurement. Obviously, applicant sought appointment of Commissioner to collect evidence. Thus, the application has been rightly rejected, on the ground that application was moved for collecting the evidence.

3.

Moreso, it is apparent that subject application was fled to prolong the trial and therefore, Petition dismissed with Cost Rs. Najeeb 2/3

1000/-, which he shall pay to Plaintifs.

4.

Petition is dismissed and disposed of.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) Najeeb 3/3