Loading...

Bhiljibhai vs State on 29 July, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Bhiljibhai vs State on 29 July, 2008
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/2645/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2645 of 2008
 

 
 
==========================================
 

BHILJIBHAI
HURSINGBHAI MOHANIYA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

========================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR PM DAVE
for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR VIPUL MISTRY, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, 
NOTICE
NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR MEHUL H RATHOD for
Respondent(s) : 3, 5, 
MR BHUSHAN B OZA for Respondent(s) :
4, 
==========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/07/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. By way of this petition,
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set
aside the order dated 05/10/2007 passed by the learned 4th
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dahod below Exh. 43 in
Regular Civil Suit No. 224/2004 by which the learned trial Court
rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment of Court
Commissioner for preparing the panchnama by expert.

2. It appears that the
petitioner has filed the suit for damages and for that purpose the
petitioner had submitted an application for appointment of Court
Commissioner for preparation of panchnama. It appears that the said
application is given to create an evidence in favour of the
petitioner, which is not permissible. The petitioner has to prove
his case by leading appropriate evidence.

3. The petitioner still can get
the opinion of an expert and lead appropriate evidence to prove the
damages. However, for that purpose, the Court Commissioner cannot be
appointed. It is always open to the petitioner to prove his case by
leading appropriate evidence for damages.

4. With this, the present
Special Civil Application is dismissed. Notice is discharged.

(M.R. SHAH, J.)

siji

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information