{"id":350862,"date":"2025-06-18T12:00:33","date_gmt":"2025-06-18T06:30:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350862"},"modified":"2025-06-24T09:42:56","modified_gmt":"2025-06-24T04:12:56","slug":"ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/","title":{"rendered":"[Order 39 Rule 7 CPC] Why Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit: Orissa HC explains"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Orissa High Court:<\/span> In the present case, the petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 20-2-2024 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara, whereby a Pleader Commissioner was appointed in terms of Order 39 Rule 7<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (\u2018CPC\u2019). A Single Judge Bench of R.K. Pattanaik<\/span>, J., opined that the report submitted by a Pleader Commissioner, appointed under Order 39 Rule 7<\/a> CPC<\/a> for property inspection, could be used to determine interim applications, like those for injunctions but it could not be taken as evidence in deciding the merits of a civil suit. The said report was only meant to assist the court in limited matters such as inspection, preservation, or detention of the property.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing any structure on the suit property, stating they had no legal claim to it. He alleged that the defendants were relying on a void gift deed and subsequent mutation to assert ownership, in respect of the suit land, which was in possession of the petitioner and his family and was used for cultivation.<\/p>\n

In their defence, the opposite parties argued that the suit land had been gifted for the purpose of establishing a school and that opposite party (Defendant 2), who originally owned the land, had voluntarily executed the gift deed in favour of the institution.<\/p>\n

The petitioner also sought a temporary injunction to stop any construction activity until the final decision in the case. During the pendency of the interim application, the opposite parties requested the trial court to appoint a Pleader Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7<\/a> CPC<\/a> to inspect the suit land and report whether it was indeed being used as a school or remained a paddy field, as claimed by the petitioner. The trial court allowed the interim application and appointed the commissioner.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this Court, arguing that such an appointment was akin to collecting evidence on behalf of the opposite party, which was not legally permissible.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

While addressing the petitioner\u2019s concern, the Court referred to Amiya Bhusan Tripathy<\/span> v. Ahammad Ali<\/span>, 1986 SCC OnLine Ori 58<\/a>, where it was held that reports from commissioners were only valid for limited purposes and could not be taken as an evidence.<\/p>\n

The Court reiterated that Order 37 Rule 7<\/a> CPC<\/a> allows for appointment of a commissioner only to inspect or preserve the condition of the property during a pending suit, particularly while dealing with injunction applications. The report produced under this provision did not carry evidentiary weight comparable to reports under Order 26 CPC<\/a>, which permitted appointment of a commissioner for recording evidence.<\/p>\n

In the present case, there was a factual dispute where the petitioner maintained that the land was agricultural (a paddy field), while the defendants asserted the existence of a functioning school. The Court found it reasonable to appoint a Pleader Commissioner solely to resolve this interim question related to the injunction and not for the purpose of final adjudication.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded that while the commissioner\u2019s report could not be treated as formal evidence in the main suit, its limited use for deciding interim relief was appropriate. The appointment did not amount to evidence gathering on behalf of the opposite parties, and the lower court had acted within its jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Thus, the petition was dismissed, with the Court reaffirming that a Pleader Commissioner\u2019s report under Order 39 Rule 7<\/a> CPC<\/a> was only for inspection related purposes and not to be treated as evidence.<\/p>\n

[Ramakrushna Nayak v. Manoj Kumar Behera, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2326<\/a>, decided on 23-5-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> S.K. Mishra, J. Pradhan<\/p>\n

For the Opposite Parties:<\/span> S.K. Dash<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The opposite parties requested to appoint a Pleader Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC to inspect the suit land and report whether it is being used as a school or remained a paddy field, as claimed by the petitioner.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":315154,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[83662,31827,56494,83659,83660,37146,83661],"class_list":["post-350862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-commissioners-report","tag-evidentiary-value","tag-inspection-report","tag-justice-r-k-pattanaik","tag-order-39-rule-7-cpc","tag-orissa-high-court","tag-pleader-commissioner"],"yoast_head":"\nPleader Commissioner\u2019s Report not evidence| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Explore why Orissa High Court held that Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Order 39 Rule 7 CPC] Why Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit: Orissa HC explains\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Orissa High Court clarifies that reports by commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC are for inspection purpose only and do not serve as evidence in civil suits unless duly proved.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-18T06:30:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-24T04:12:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"[Order 39 Rule 7 CPC] Why Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit: Orissa HC explains\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/\",\"name\":\"Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report not evidence| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-18T06:30:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-24T04:12:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Explore why Orissa High Court held that Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Orissa High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Order 39 Rule 7 CPC] Why Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit: Orissa HC explains\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report not evidence| SCC Times","description":"Explore why Orissa High Court held that Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Order 39 Rule 7 CPC] Why Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit: Orissa HC explains","og_description":"Orissa High Court clarifies that reports by commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC are for inspection purpose only and do not serve as evidence in civil suits unless duly proved.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-18T06:30:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-24T04:12:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"[Order 39 Rule 7 CPC] Why Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit: Orissa HC explains","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/","name":"Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report not evidence| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-18T06:30:33+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-24T04:12:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Explore why Orissa High Court held that Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Orissa High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/ori-hc-order-39-rule-7-cpc-commissioner-report-not-evidence\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Order 39 Rule 7 CPC] Why Pleader Commissioner\u2019s Report cannot be taken as evidence in civil suit: Orissa HC explains"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":203283,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/08\/appointment-of-pleader-commissioner-under-cpc-a-necessary-tool-for-elucidating-the-truth\/","url_meta":{"origin":350862,"position":0},"title":"Appointment of Pleader Commissioner under CPC: A necessary tool for elucidating the truth","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 8, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., allowed a writ petition filed against the order of trial judge whereby petitioners application, under Order XXXIX Rule 7 and XXVI Rule 9 &10 read with Section 151 CPC, for the appointment of the commissioner was rejected. The main\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":304376,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350862,"position":1},"title":"Court cannot presume disobedience; strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"October 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIn its zeal to ensure implementation of rule of law, the court cannot hold a person guilty of violation of its orders and proceed punitively against him merely because the circumstances give rise to a strong suspicion of the court\u2019s order been disobeyed.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213962,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/25\/ori-hc-court-may-appoint-a-survey-knowing-commissioner-only-if-dispute-pertains-to-area-of-the-land-or-identification-or-location-or-measurement-of-the-land\/","url_meta":{"origin":350862,"position":2},"title":"Ori HC | Court may appoint a survey knowing commissioner, only if dispute pertains to area of the land or identification or location or measurement of the land","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 25, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: The Bench of A.K. Rath, J. allowed the petition filed that challenged the order which allowed the appointment of an Amin Commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for the suit land. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff-opposite party instituted the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":370756,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/24\/ori-hc-police-assistance-can-be-directed-to-implement-injunction-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":350862,"position":3},"title":"Courts can direct police assistance to implement injunction order under S. 151 CPC: Orissa High Court","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"December 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMere filing of an appeal cannot and does not operate as a stay of the order appealed against, unless an order of stay operation of the same has been passed.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"police assistance for injunction order","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/police-assistance-for-injunction-order.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/police-assistance-for-injunction-order.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/police-assistance-for-injunction-order.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/police-assistance-for-injunction-order.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/24\/ori-hc-order-21-rule-29-cpc-cannot-come-to-the-rescue-unless-sufficient-cause-is-shown-to-stay-the-execution-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":350862,"position":4},"title":"Ori HC | Order 21 Rule 29 CPC cannot come to the rescue unless sufficient cause is shown to stay the execution case","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: The Bench of A.K. Rath, J. dismissed the petition filed against the order which rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC to stay the further proceeding in an execution case till the disposal of another civil suit.\u00a0 The facts of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":271413,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/09\/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-order-refusing-appointment-of-local-commissioner-under-order-xxvi-rule-9-of-cpc-1908-does-not-affect-rights-of-parties-no-revision-available\/","url_meta":{"origin":350862,"position":5},"title":"Punjab and Haryana High Court | Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, 1908 does not affect rights of parties; No revision available","author":"Editor","date":"August 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Alka Sarin, J., dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge vide which the application for appointment was dismissed on the ground that the order refusing appointment does not decide any\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Punjab and Haryana High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350862","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=350862"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350862\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/315154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}