Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2016/12/leading-judgment-on-issue-and-execution.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:16:46+00:00

Document:
recalled, or a new witness list is submitted and allowed.
investigation under Rule 9 to 10(3) of Order XXVI CPC.
under Rule 9 to 10(3) of Order XXVI CPC.
commission appointed under Rule 9 of Order XXVI CPC.
wherein also the scope of a "further enquiry" provided.
permissible though it may result in conflicting report.
rule 1 to 15 of Order XXVI CPC.
incorporation of Rule 4A in Order XXVI CPC.
appointed. Another decision drawn in Sivaraman v.
Narayanan [(1986) KLT 578] Varghese Kalliyath .J.
lines were also drawn through the disputed property.
pressed for dismissal of the suit.
is not a property used by the plaintiff as means of access.
before the suit and it is known to the plaintiff.
judgment dated 20.02.1999 against which appeal in A.S.
Regular Second Appeal was preferred.
applicable to commissions issued for various purposes.
instance of foreign tribunals and High Courts.
8) form part of the record of the suit.
further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit.
further enquiry as it shall think it.
shall confirm, vary or set aside the same.
disposal or on any other reason.
application in the matter of Rule 7 of Order XXVI.
six categories made mentioned above.
Rule 4A, Rule 8, Rule 10(3), Rules 12 (2) and 14 (2).
only under sub rule 3 of Rule 14 of Order XXVI CPC.
report and deposition recorded by him.
condition precedent for issuing a second commission.
which the Court may issue a new commission.
issuing commission one after another is deprecated.
what is contemplated by O.26.R.10(3)Civil PC."
portion of the judgment is extracted below for reference.
commissioner cannot be wiped off the record.
record and not considered as evidence.
Sahu's case (supra) in the following lines.
report in writing signed by him to the Court.
considered as evidence in any circumstances.
per se affect the merits of the case.
said decision is extracted below for reference.
Narayana Guptan v. Madhava Menon (1964 KLT.
another single Bench of this Court in Ummer v.
Muhammed [(1983) KLT 258] in the following lines.
work of the first commissioner.
report already submitted is necessary.
court can do so in exercise of its inherent power."
assess at the time of hearing of the suit or proceedings.
and shall form part of the record."
32. In Swami Premananda Bharathi v.
appoint a second commissioner for further inquiry.
contained in Order XXVI Rule 12 C.P.C is "vital".
effective and cheaper administration of justice.
wholly illegal and without jurisdiction".
therein are one and the same.
the first commissioner for the reasons stated.
governed by different fields of interpretation.
statute and that too taken out of their context.
which they appear to have been stated.
38. Then again in Nair Service Society v.
39. In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v.
"Judgment are required to be read in their entirety.
A judgment cannot be read as a statute.
and the context wherein observations were made.
read in isolation and out of context."
of the proceedings and report of the first commission.
Ummer v. Muhammed [1983 KLT 258].
overlooked or rather ignored by the first appellate court.
No.1, the property belonging to the defendant situated.
scheduled in the suit as item No.2.
judgment, as the litigation was started in the year 1988.
RESIDING AT ANTHIKKAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MOTHER SUPERIOR.
Dated this the 15 thday of December, 2016.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.