https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385400 In a suit for bare injunction where the pleadings showed that construction had already been completed, appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC was found unnecessary because local inspection or measurement would not resolve the real , which centred on title, possession and the nature of relief. The amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add a mandatory injunction was also rejected because it was sought long after the cause for that relief had accrued, was beyond limitation, and was not suitable for effective adjudication in the existing suit. The civil revision petitions accordingly failed and the trial court orders were affirmed. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2019 21:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385400 In a suit for bare injunction where the pleadings showed that construction had already been completed, appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC was found unnecessary because local inspection or measurement would not resolve the real , which centred on title, possession and the nature of relief. The amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add a mandatory injunction was also rejected because it was sought long after the cause for that relief had accrued, was beyond limitation, and was not suitable for effective adjudication in the existing suit. The civil revision petitions accordingly failed and the trial court orders were affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385400