ROYAL INDUSTRIES Vs. NATIONAL STEEL ROLLING MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 17/3/2023 whereby the trial Court has appointed Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and submit a report about the existing position.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the local commissioner had been appointed at the very outset even before framing of issues. Local Commissioner ought not to be appointed to collect the evidence for any party. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Baljinder Kaur and others versus Kulwant Kaur and others, 2021 (2) LAR 456; Sunil and others versus Suresh Kumar and other, 2017 (2) RCR (Civil) 882; Banarsi Dass versus Sunita Rani @ Sarita Rani and others, 2017 (2) RCR (Civil) 274 and judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Rangasamy versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Meetur Electricity System, Meetur Dam, Salem District and others, 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 68. Issue notice to the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and submits that appointment of Local Commissioner was necessary for determining the controversy at hand. The issue is with regard to receiving the physical possession of the demised premises which had been leased out and the current status of the machinery and other equipment. He submits that the the Local Commissioner can be appointed even before the evidence is led by the parties if it is necessary for the adjudication of the case. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Ismail @ Ismaila (deceased thr. Lrs.) versus Anil Kumar Goyal (Modi), 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 437. Heard.