RAIS AHMAD Vs. DEV SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and order dated 02.05.2015, passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Haldwani, District Nainital in O.S. No. 5 of 2015, Rais Ahmad v/s. Dev Singh and others, whereby application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner, herein, under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. to appoint Advocate Commission to visit the spot and to submit his report about the spot position was rejected as well as assailing the judgment and order dated 06.07.2015, passed by District Judge, Nainital in Civil Revision No. 37 of 2015, whereby revision filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, herein, assailing the order dated 02.05.2015 was also dismissed. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff/petitioner, herein, has filed O.S. No. 5 of 2015, in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Haldwani, District Nainital mainly seeking relief against defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 1 be restrained in making any interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the property, in question. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff is in possession of the property, in question, as a tenant of the defendant No. 1 and without terminating his tenancy, landlord/owner/defendant No. 1 wants to dispossess the plaintiff/petitioner, herein from the property, in question, by using force. As required under Order 7 Rule 3 C.P.C., details of the property have already been given in paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint.

(2.) Defendant/owner has filed his written statement specifically denying the relationship of landlord -tenant between the parties. It has been stated in the written statement that plaintiff/petitioner, herein, is neither in possession nor was ever inducted as tenant by the owner/defendant No. 1.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 has also sought relief for permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff/petitioner, herein, as counter claim. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff/petitioner, herein, has moved application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Advocate Commission to inspect the spot and to submit report about the spot position which was rejected by the Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 02.05.2015, and revision arising therefrom was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Nainital vide order dated 06.07.2015. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff/petitioner, herein, has filed present writ petition.