 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Gist of replies 5.41. The opinion on question No. 61 is divided, and there are various shades of view expressed. There are those who favour the suggested limitations, and those who oppose any amendment. The first constitutes equally strong group as the second. These two, taken together, exhaust a large number of replies. A few replies favour affidavits, while there is one suggestion for recording evidence through Commissioners. Some Judges2 of the Supreme Court are not in favour of making any changes regarding the limitations as to inquiry into disputed facts under Article 226 of the Constitution. 1. Para. 5.29, supra. 2. S. No. 50. 5.42. Some of the important points made in the replies are the following: With respect to the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226, one High Court Judge1 does not favour the view that disputed questions of fact should not be gone into. For the trial of such issues of fact, the Judge suggests that the District Court may be directed to record evidence so as to save the precious time of the High Court. The present practice of Sling affidavits and counter-affidavits may be continued. In exceptional cases, the High Court may send it for recording evidence in the same manner as in suit. 1. S. No. 17.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back