Topic
Bombay High Court rules that appointing a Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC before the plaintiff completes evidence shifts the burden of proof unfairly. The decision clarifies that such appointments must follow evidence completion to prevent judicial overreach in encroachment disputes.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a delay in seeking an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is not fatal if the necessity arises post-cross-examination, provided the purpose is localization rather than evidence gathering. This clarifies the scope of judicial discretion in procedural timelines for property disputes.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that in land boundary disputes, courts must appoint commissioners under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC; failure to do so renders trial defective.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that res judicata does not apply when different parties file applications with distinct scopes in execution proceedings under CPC Order 26 Rule 9.