SMT. UMA BHARDWAJ Vs. MANIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution taking exception to the order dtd. 11/4/2018 passed by trial Court whereby application preferred by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner has been rejected.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property against the defendant. It was the allegation of plaintiff that suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff from erstwhile owner and thereafter, moved application for mutation before Tehsildar Gwalior which was allowed in name of plaintiff which was marked in revenue records. The said land was demarcated and plaintiff has the right title, interest and possession over the suit property. However, defendants are trying to sell the land belonging to plaintiff and it appears that they are exceeding the land which is available to them in revenue records. Therefore, the instant suit was filed.

(3.) Along with the suit, an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC was filed for appointment of Revenue Officer as Court Commissioner so that demarcation or measurement of the land can be carried out. Approach of trial Court is illegal because application was rejected on the ground that Revenue Officers cannot be appointed as Commissioner for carrying out commission.