Nandkishor Bandulal Lahoti v. Jagdish Shrikisan Kasat
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
Jagdish Shrikisan Kasat Mr. Rajgopal Dravid for the Petitioner. Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for the Respondent. ... Respondent. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 07th DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 This writ petition is directed against the interlocutory order which requires no interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise the order requires no interference. 2 In the written statement the defendant/petitioner contended that the suit premises were in a good condition and could be used for residence. He applied for an appointment of the court commissioner to inspect the suit premises and give report whether the suit premises were in good condition and suitable for residence. In other words, the spb/- 2 wp7004-10.sxw petitioner wanted to collect evidence through appointment of the court commissioner, which is not permissible. It is open to the defendant/petitioner to examine witnesses to prove condition and suitability of the suit premises for use as a residence. 3 The writ petition is rejected summarily.
[D.G. KARNIK, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 07 Dec 2010. The bench was D G KARNIK.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.