SUBHASH Vs. VIKAS YADAV AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the trial Court whereby application filed by him under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Local Commission was declined.

(2.) In their suit, the plaintiffs-respondents averred that they purchased plot Nos. 56 and 57 from one Rajender Singh Lohia on 22.9.1986 vide two sale deeds. The suit property was reflected therein as part and parcel of Khasra No.28 Killa No.30/2, whereas in the site plan, the suit property was shown as situated in Khasra No. 28 Killa No. 27. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed that they were co-owners of the said number but the defendantpetitioner was trying to encroach upon their property. On the other hand, the case of the defendant was that plaintiffs did not purchase plot Nos. 56 and 57 and the sale deeds do not relate to the present rectangle number and Killa number. The site plan attached by the plaintiffs was also not correct.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer that a revenue official may be appointed as Local Commission to inspect the suit property with a specific direction to find out as to whether the plots, i.e. suit property is situated in Killa No.30/2 of Khasra No.28 or in Killa No.27. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing a reply stating therein that there was absolutely no dispute qua the identification, demarcation or location of the plots in question. In fact, the defendant had made out an imaginary issue as to whether the plots are in Killa Nos.30/2 or 27. It was also stated that after carving out of the colony, the Killa numbers had lost their relevancy and the suit property was identifiable by plot numbers rather than Killa numbers.