MAHESH KUMAR Vs. RAMRATNIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against three interlocutory orders dated 12.7.2012; 24.7.2011 and 8.8.2012 passed by the trial Court. At the outset, Shri Tugnawat submitted that he is confining his arguments only in respect of Order dated 12.7.2012, therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw remaining two Orders with a liberty to challenge in appropriate proceedings. On due consideration, permission is granted. He is permitted to take back certified copy of the Orders dated 24.7.2012 and 8.8.2012 provided he place on record true Photostat copies thereof. So in this petition, we are examining only the Order dated 12.7.2012. Petitioner is the plaintiff. He has filed a suit for permanent injunction both prohibitory as well Mandatory. It is claimed in the suit that defendants have encroached upon portion of land which was sold to them. In the suit plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for spot inspection by a Local Commissioner to ascertain the area of encroachment. By the order impugned (12.7.2012) said application was rejected. Hence this petition.

(2.) IT is settled law that plaintiff must stand own his own legs to establish his case. He can not resort to roving and fishing enquiries to gather evidence to bolster his case. Order 26 Rule 9 is not meant for this purpose. In this view of the matter, We find no illegality with the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is therefore dismissed summarily at the threshold.