Ramachandra Vs. Sundaram Setty

civil procedure code, 1908 - order 26 rule 9 - appointment of commissioner - where possession & measurements admitted, no appointment to collect evidence.; the defendants have admitted possession of the plaintiff and measurements of the property. so there was nothing for the commissioner to go and find out. the encroachment, if any, cannot be gone into in a suit for permanent injunction in which possession and measurements of the property are admitteed... what they say is that the plaintiff wants to make wrongful gain by encroaching on their property. the commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. - section 19(3)(c): [ashok b hinchigeri, j] violations of the provisions of section 19(3)(c)- held, as per section 19(3)(c) of the prevention of corruption act, the power under section 482 of cr.p.c., cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in cognizable offences. legislature has unequivocally made is clear that no court shall stay the proceedings under this act on any other ground under section 19(3) of the prevention of corruption act. further, section 482 of the code starts with the words notwithstanding anything contained in the code. but its non obstante clause does not say and include the words notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. therefore there is no hesitation in holding that the provisions contained in section 482 of the code can have no primacy over the provisions contained in section 19(3)(c) of the p.c. act. if an enactment contains a specific bar, then inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to get over that barordervishwanath, j.1. heard both the counsel. admitted. heard on merits. .2. in this revision petition, the defendants-revision petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned munsiff, mysore on i.a.no. 3 under order 26 rule 9 c.p.c. in o.s.no. 12 of. 1994; i.a.no. 3 was filed by the defendants-revision petitioners praying that the commissioner should be appointed to go and take measurements and find out if there is any encroachment. the learned munsiff rejected i.a. no. 3.3. it is clear from the written statement that the defendants have admitted possession of the plaintiff and the measurements of the property. so there was nothing for the commissioner to go and find out. if there was any encroachment, other remedies are open to the defendants. the encroachment, if any, cannot be gone into in a suit for permanent injunction in which possession and the measurements of the property are admitted. secondly and more importantly, it is seen from the affidavit in support of i.a.no. 3 that the defendants do not say that the plaintiff has already encroached. what they say is that the plaintiff wants to make wrongful gain by encroaching on their property. the commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. the order of the learned munsiff cannot be found fault with. the revision petition is rejected. it is made clear that if, in the future, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff makes any encroachment, it is open to the defendants to take appropriate proceedings.