SATYADEV Vs. A.D.J., VARANASI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although this case has a chequered history, but only brief facts relevant for the decision of this writ petition are being narrated below. The dispute is between the boundaries of two plots No. 84/3 and 84/4 in the village in question, regarding which Suit No. 636 of 1992 filed by the petitioner and Suit No. 592 of 1992 filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 are pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi. Earlier, with regard to the possession of the plot in question, the matter came up to the High Court and while deciding Writ Petition No. 37917 of 1999, Smt. Radha Devi Vs. Special Judge, Varanasi, this Court on 7.9.1999 had directed for appointment of a Survey Commissioner to submit his report who was to make local investigation for demarcation of the properties and ascertain the existence of the alleged road, if any, and demarcate the same in accordance with the Rules relating to survey, taking a fixed point. Pursuant thereto, vide his order dated 4.10.1999, directions had been issued by the trial Court for appointing a Survey Commissioner, who was to demarcate the entire Plot No. 84 in accordance with the Bandobasti Naksha and thereafter determine the boundaries of the plots in question i.e. No. 84/3 and 84/4. In response thereto the Survey Commissioner submitted his report dated 2.1.2004 in Suit No. 636 of 1992. The objections were filed by the parties and thereafter the trial Court, vide its order dated 9.7.2004, and after holding that the survey report was not in accordance with the provisions of law as well as the directions given by the High Court vide judgment dated 7.9.1999 and also the order of the trial Court dated 4.10.1999, rejected the survey report dated 2.1.2004 and issued directions that a fresh report be submitted within 20 days, taking into account the orders dated 7.9.1999 and 4.10.1999. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 167 of 2004, which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi vide his order dated 28.7.20004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 9.7.2004 and 28.7.2004, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri O.S.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Vijai Kumar Rai and Sri Rajendra Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to delay the decision of the suit by raising frivolous objections to the Survey Commissioner's report dated 2.1.2004. According to the petitioner, since the Bandobasti Naksha was not available, the Survey Commissioner had prepared the report as well as site plan in accordance with the best material available and as such the same ought to have been accepted by the trial Court.