High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Tirtha Raj v. State Of U.P. Thru' The District Magistrate, Jaunpur & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 26598 of 2006  RD-AH 9562 (15 May 2006)
HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner's prayer for examining the survey commissioner before the appellate court has been rejected by the impugned order. The learned counsel contends that a survey report obtained with the permission of the court under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. is a document which has also been exhibited in evidence and the formal proof of it by oral evidence is required and for that purpose the petitioner-appellant had made the prayer before the appellate court which has been rejected.
On a perusal of the petition the relevant orders granting permission to the petitioner-appellant to obtain and file a survey report as additional piece of evidence and also the order exhibiting that documents in evidence have not been annexed with the affidavit given in support of the petition. In case there is a document which has been accepted as additional piece of evidence by the appellate court and has also been exhibited in evidence obviously, is not required to be formally proved by oral evidence. Whether or not the prayer of the petitioner for examining the survey commissioner was justified, is a question which cannot be gone into and decided by the court unless the aforesaid documents are available on record. The petitioner's counsel, thus, prays for and is granted a week's time to file supplementary affidavit annexing those documents and put upon 23.5.2006.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.