Court No. - 43
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5062 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sri Amit Tiwari Alias Monu Respondent :- Sri Lal Yashoverdhan Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Tripathi Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner's application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to collect the evidence has been rejected by the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 78 of 2018 (Lal Yashovardhan Singh Vs. Amit Tiwari & another).
It is contended that under Order 26 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner is entitled to seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the court below in rejecting the same has committed a patent error.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I do not find any patent illegality in the impugned order, inasmuch as appointment of Advocate Commissioner is within the judicial discretion of the Court and the same is made to find out certain facts which if found necessary but it is not supposed to help a party in litigation to collect the evidence.
Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Lbm/-