LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-172

HARCHAND Vs. KARAMBIR SINGH

Decided On July 18, 2022
HARCHAND Appellant
V/S
KARAMBIR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner for setting aside order dtd. 29/9/2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tosham vide which the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffpetitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendantrespondents from interfering in his peaceful possession and cultivation over Khasra/Killa No.78//25 min south (3-10) comprised in Khewat No.133 Khatauni No.197 situated in the revenue estate of village Bhurtana, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani as per jamabandi for the year 2016-17 and further for restraining the defendant-respondents from causing interference in the use and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff-petitioner and further that the defendant-respondents be restrained from changing the nature of the suit property in any manner, on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence.

(3.) Thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffpetitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for appointment of a Local Commissioner for bringing on record the existing position of the suit property. The said application was contested by the defendant-respondents inter-alia pleading that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed the application just to delay the proceedings and that the plaintiff-petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action to file the application. It was further pleaded that the application does not fall within the ambit of Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC and that the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence for any of the parties. Even the possession of the plaintiffpetitioner on the suit property was denied. Vide the impugned order dtd. 29/9/2021, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court.