2018 (3) TMI 2058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m application, which is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1909 (Hereinafter referred to as 'CPC', for brevity) for appointment of a Court Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property and to measure the same, is allowed. 2. The sole defendant, the original petitioner has impugned this order in this writ petition, but, after his demise on 31.5.2017, which is during the pendency of the above petition, his legal representatives have come on record and continued the proceedings. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the present application, viz., the application for appointment of Court Commissioner was filed when the suit was fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rial Court erred in receiving the application for appointment of Commissioner after the "hearing" was closed and matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment, and later, listed for clarification?" 7. The Honourable Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy [(2011)11 SCC 275], while listing the circumstances under which the provisions of Section 151 CPC could be exercised, has enunciated that the restraint which the Courts practice in receiving the interlocutory applications after the arguments are concluded is a matter of convention and this convention cannot be applied as a straitjacket formula when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justify the receipt and consideration of such application; and in those circumstance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er vs. M.S.S. Food Products [(2012)2 SCC 196], while considering the questions whether the judgment pronounced by one judge, after another judge had completed hearing, would be binding because the later judge had not heard the parties? and whether fixing the date for pronouncing the judgment under Order XXII Rule 1 of CPC could be said to be "adjourned for hearing of the suit ex parte" as contemplated under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, as canvassed by the defendant, whose applications after the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment were rejected, has declared that once the suit is closed for pronouncement of judgment, there is no question of further proceedings in the suit, and that merely because the defendant continued to make applica....