DHARAM DAS RAI Vs. CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents. Instead to hear this petition on the question of admission, with the consent of the parties the same is heard finally.

(2.) Petitioner/appellant/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2012, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No.120-A/2010, whereby his application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC to call the Commissioner's report regarding disputed place has been dismissed at the interlocutory stage of such appeal.

(3.) It is undisputed fact between the parties that in pendency of the impugned suit before the trial Court an application for appointment of Commissioner was also filed by the petitioner and on consideration vide order dated 16.4.2010 the trial Court has dismissed the same and at that time such interim order was not challenged on behalf of the petitioner/ plaintiff before any superior Court but subsequently on dismissing his suit he filed the impugned appeal before the appellate Court and in pendency of such appeal he has filed impugned application for appointment of Commissioner to call the report of the disputed place and on dismissing the same the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition.