WW. ,“WW mama? w $€J83I (m 2004‘ Wmm I agmqm‘ ~Wm<W> wwm ‘Ww1iwm 10.3.2005 $hri Manindm 5hr£vasmv , counsel for fhe peTiTioner. 5hri PP. Sahu, coumsei fo‘ #fhe respondem‘s.’ J Heard bcfh fhe counsel. mmmz As agreed by ieamed ca nsei for .Eo‘m fhe games, This wrh‘ pefh‘ion is beimg d§spesed of firm 1y m‘ The admissitm smge §fséif By ‘fhés wri‘r pe‘fii‘ion Lmd r Ar’ticle 227 of fhe Consfi‘rufion of India, Jihe pefiTioner has ’qu sTionad ’rhe Qegcdify, propriaiy arid corraciwess of ‘rhe orders da‘f 19102004 & 2.12.2004 (Amexures P—7 & P—B), whereby f'he pefh‘io er‘Sfeques? made umder- Secfion R31 am! Order 26 'Rule i Q'f ‘rhe Cod 0f Civil Pracedur-e for examining fhe dacfm" mmeh/, Dr. Sumeef Tha'kar, or: cemmissioe, wha Tr‘eufed fhe peij‘fiomr a? Nagpur/m order +o§ prove Then” ’a’he pe‘fi'rkmer was eick a? e 4.-1 3a W, Wan—at, wV>+ W .31/ W 20M ~mm (W) WWW -2 WWW wmm ‘ WWW wm $ai‘maa1éw rem md sub-kwmg pas"? of fhe premises if: fhe year 1991. '5ummcns “(he pa‘ri‘mner hgrein filad wrifmn of issues The responder}? absen‘rad was roceedad ex-pmmi’e md mafer’ rzcam‘img The evideme fhe ieamed Trial Cour‘r decreed The Sui‘r m .2901. ThereafTer! The 1 iahuiord J moved x‘he decree and 'H’re mTice of 1‘he said :ould i ram .L we served on The peTi’rkmer. Ir} T‘n’e meanwhiie, fhe pefi‘fEomr‘ herei'n moved an aiaplica‘riorl wade? Order ? RuEe i3 read w§Th Sedion E51 of "rhe C.?.C. se‘z"r§mg aséde fhe ewpaWe de of “$6 sui‘i' were issued mnd sTa‘i‘amenT, cmd affes" frammg' himseh‘. Therefara, The sui? {avaur of The Eand lord on 27.11 an cappHca’fian for execm‘iw of axecu‘fim was issued, bu? The? an 85‘2002 for cree. Durmg ffhe pendemy 0f The aggpiicm'ion fhe respondeefs harem moved an agpSicafion fha‘r The pe’fi"¥‘ior7er” herein is desTvuc’rihg 'rhe house and wher pmper‘i‘ies >‘ 1 aTTached To The house and he ih aiso cuTTing The Trees and damaging JJme !muse. The pehhoaer heregEn also ‘ghea C l § an eppiicafion far s‘fay of 4,;me execu‘han proceedihgs (ml The same was accepfed. proceedihgs for sewng nsid I K %he eX-pari‘e decree were m? proceedihg wh‘h expecwd spee The respondem‘s herein cens‘iminerj f0 approach fhis Cour“? for app 15.11.2003 iooki‘ng f0 ‘i'he “facT Cam? direci‘ed “ihe friai Caur Order 9 Ruie 13 07' The C.P.C. tor seTTing aside The ex«parTe decree GL DRJ~—Fs/3‘50~12/2000~50,000. priafe ciirechari arid viée order ém‘ed cmd circumsmnces cf The case, This e..o mspsse 1' GT: The appiimTion under W 2004 wwm WWW wqa7IMW Wm. $Wm ET Seems The? affer This order, ‘fhe friai Gourf sfar‘red fakmg appmp‘rim‘e S'feps far disposed of fhm‘ ‘d fime and ih The? pwcess The “for aliowing Time 1‘9 produce The fhe ‘Mal Cour? Enhieily, ?he pe‘rihoher hereih requesfed fhe Cour? for issuance of summer} “re of coming, fha‘r reques? was aiiowed w up even m‘ier' C . 3+1 ‘ e service, i . rhen on o commission was moved and The same spaheenfs argued Then“ The pe'a‘i’rioher edmgs for one or" fhe o's‘heh reason, an appiicafion for examir1oTion of The dowror’ on comm§ssion Very faég‘ly, he agreed fha? ah order may be §a1 CourT shook} appoim’ an Advocafe oner for record a‘he evidence of The docror, and 1‘he peh’rioner herein “(o bear The expenses of fhe counse} for J5me oespondenfsfor going fo Nagpur and Thou“ The Commissioner shouid examine ihe docior wi‘rhin a period of 15 days from fhe dare of appainfmen? of fhe Cnmmissianer f0 examine fhe wifness. Therefore, as agreed by izarned counsel for boi‘n ‘E‘he pariies, fhewri? pemifion is oilowed and "he ‘i’riai Cour? is direcfed To appoini ‘GLDRJ FS/350‘—12/2000—50,000. am:W (W) WWW § 3 WiThin a geriod (if fhree mom'hs. dppiica‘i‘iom vvii‘hirl ‘l‘he s’rifmia‘fe pe‘h'"i'iomr herein Emfialiy requeS‘ evidgnce, cmd fhe same was acce producz we doC‘i'or as 5% was r and when The doc'for‘ did nvo‘r Wr- appEicaTion far- examimng Mm on was rejec‘iwd. Learned counsel fw' ”rhe, r'é i flarem : wan‘rs . To ‘ deEay a.‘he proce arid for Thai" purpose he movad y passed To me effec‘?‘ fha‘r The Tr P mc‘Hcm9 a? Rcii ur ag Commiss I SEE W, We“, W €Q ded by W ~ ...g3( 3m? W (W) Wmm *{L am Advoca‘ie pmcficing a‘f Raig evidence m5 Dr. 5umea+ Thakk: an order fha‘f ‘?he pe‘rh‘icmer‘ harem wiH bear *ihe expemses of fhe comsei for" The respondenTs for- going ’ro Nagpur and ofher expenses bowie by counsel for fhe respcmdenfs ee {Red by The Win} Court 1T 5h we? wifh The assisfcmce of i‘h in order To ascer‘faii'l his avaEiabiIi’fy viz.,. da‘re £2 Time fer recarding his evidence, wirhin a period of 15 days from ?he dafe m: appoin‘rmeni, and *ihen on '‘ihe da‘ie £‘iixed £we recording i‘ne evidence of ‘i’he d é'fcn, The Commissioner“, couhs‘ei for The pei‘i‘i‘icner, and counsel for “i“i e responden‘is aii The Three fogei'her wiil go f0 Nagpur for Pecor-diiqg “@2004. Maw wmwm I WW wm ‘ aiwm ur' as Commisswmr h) record The The Win! Caurf shouid aiso pass (r, The eochr‘ prac+§cing a1“ Nagpur. ould a§so be made dear m fhe erder approech ‘i‘he Docfor in advame e pee'iTioner', fhe Commisséaner ghaii Erhe evidence and submi‘r 'i'he same ‘ro