ASHA DEVI Vs. BHOLLU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 4.5.2011 whereby an application filed by them for appointment of Local Commissioner has been declined. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit against his brother Sewa Ram that he is owner of the house in question which was owned by their father and being his self acquired property, transferred the same in his favour by virtue of a civil court decree dated 18.5.1993 titled Bholu Ram v. Datta Ram. The petitioners are in possession of a part of the said house being licencee and since the licence has been terminated, they are liable to be evicted. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement alleging that the property in dispute was coparcenary joint Hindu family property which had come from their grand father and after his death, the same was inherited by Datta Ram and his sons. During the pendency of the suit, Zila Parishad, Gurgaon made an application for impleadng it as a party on the ground that it is owner of the property in question. The said application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 7.11.2009 against which revision petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.5.2010. Since the Zila Parishad, Gurgaon became party to the suit and claimed itself to be the owner, the petitioners filed an application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of the property in question. The trial court dismissed the application vide order impugned herein. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that demarcation of the property was essential for just decision of the case and the application for appointment of Local Commissioner was filed in order to do justice between the parties. The declining of the said application has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondents supported the order passed by the trial court and submitted that there was no illegality or perversity in the order which may warrant interference by this Court. It was contended that in view of the judgments of this Court in Pritam Singh and another v. Sunder Lal and others, 1990 98 PunLR 191, Sumer Chand Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, 2006 143 PunLR 844and Bant Singh alias Balwant Singh and another v. Raghubir Singh and others, 2008 152 PunLR 336, no revision petition was maintainable against the order declining to appoint a Local Commissioner.