HANUMAN PRASAD @ HANOMAN Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.02.2014, passed by the learned trial court, whereby the application moved by the plaintiff petitioner (46 Ga 2) for issuing Commission under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the learned trial court giving the reason that it is not clear in the application moved by the plaintiff as to for what purpose the plaintiff seeks to get the Commission issued. It has further been observed by the learned trial court that the application for issuing Commission has been moved after seventeen years from the date of institution of the suit which shows that there has never been a need to issue a Commission for all these seventeen years. The revisional court agreeing with the order passed by the learned trial court has dismissed the revision petition by means of the order dated 06.05.2014, which has also been challenged in this petition.

(3.) It is settled law that issuing Commission under Order 26, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. is basically the power/jurisdiction vested in the court concerned for the purposes of elucidating any matter of the suit in dispute. The learned trial court has given the finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish as to for what purposes or to ascertain which matter in dispute, he has prayed for issuing the Commission.