VALABHAI PASABHAI RAVAL Vs. HIRABHAI PASABHAI RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 22/2/2022 passed by the 5 th Additional Civil Judge, Palanpur in Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 2021 below Exh.6, whereby the petitioner - original plaintiff prayed for executing the panchnama, through the Court Commissioner, of the suit property to establish his possession in the suit property, which came to be rejected.

(2.) Mr. Vicky B. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner - original plaintiff, has vehemently submitted that pursuant to the family settlement the suit property came into the share of the present petitioner - original plaintiff. However, ignoring the family arrangement, the petitioner - original plaintiff is compelled to file a suit for declaration that he is the owner and in possession of the suit property and to restrain the original defendants from interfering with the said property, and therefore, he has submitted that the panchnama of the suit property is required to be carried out as requested below Exh.6 application, and therefore, he has requested that this petition be entertained and allowed.

(3.) Having heard Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner - original plaintiff as also going through the application, Exh.6 and the impugned order, it is very clear that only for the purpose of showing possession of the suit property, the petitioner - original plaintiff wanted Court Commissioner to be appointed for carrying out the panchnama. However, as per the settled principle of law, Court Commission order for issuing commission to collect the evidence in support of any of the parties to the suit cannot be granted, and therefore, no request for carrying out the panchnama of the suit property to establish the possession of the suit property can be issued by the Court and that has rightly been not done by the Court, and therefore, I see no reason to interfere in this petition, that too, exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present petition is rejected.