RAMANUJ KUSHWAHA Vs. BRIJBHAN KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) He is heard on the question of admission.

(2.) THE petitioners - plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 16.10.2012, (Ann. P -1) passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class -II, Sidhi in C.O.S. No. 82 -A/10 whereby their application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of the Commissioner to call the Commissioner's report of the disputed place has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have perused the impugned order alongwith the papers placed on record, so also the case law in the matter of Chhunnilal v. Ramchandra reported in, 2002 (1) M.P. WN 105 stated in the impugned order. In the available scenario, I have not found any error, infirmity, perversity or anything against the propriety of law in the order impugned, so it does not require any interference at this stage, specially when the impugned suit is at the initial stage and the evidence of the plaintiff is yet to be started. It is settled proposition of law that neither of the party has a right to use the process of the court as an agency for collecting evidence for him of them. In such premises, the impugned order does not require any interference, hence this petition is hereby dismissed but by extending a liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application in this regard after recording the evidence of both the parties if there is any ambiguity in the evidence then to clarify the same such application may be filed by the petitioners and at that stage on filing such application, the trial court shall be at liberty to consider such application afresh on its own merits without influencing from any finding and observation made by the trial court in the order impugned or in this order.