AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 199 wordsC. V. Bhadang, J.
Rule, made returnable forthwith.
Mr. Gaonkar, the learned counsel waives service for the respondent no.1, who is the only contesting party. Heard finally by consent of parties.
This petition can be disposed off on a short count. The learned trial court had appointed a commissioner for recording of evidence on behalf of the petitioner on 7/8/2018 and the suit was fixed on 18/8/2018. On that date, the Commissioner was absent and therefore the petitioner filed another application for appointment of commissioner, which is rejected on 18/8/2018. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge. Once the trial court had appointed a commissioner for recording evidence, the commission should be enforced and since the commissioner had failed to return the commission after recording evidence, it is for the trial court to consider the application for appointment of another commissioner in accordance with law. Subject to this, the impugned order is set aside. The trial court shall consider the application for appointment of the commissioner filed by the petitioner on 18/8/2018 on its own merits and in accordance with law. With this, the petition is disposed off with no order as to costs.