BHUPINDER KISHORE Vs. FATEH SINGH YADAV AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is to challenge the order dated 24.03.2011, accepting the application filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, to disallow the examination of the expert of the petitioner. In short, a preliminary decree was passed in a partition suit and for the preparation of the final decree, the Court appointed Shri Sudhir Mohan Mittal as Local Commissioner to demarcate the share of the parties by metes and bounds. The Local Commissioner prepared his report on 18.01.2010 to which the petitioner filed his objection on 18.03.2010, reply to the objection was filed by the decree-holder and the learned Court below, vide its order dated 14.08.2011, framed the issues to the following effect:--

(2.) After the issues were framed, the case was posted for evidence of the objector who was also asked to file PF/DM/List of witnesses, if any, within 7 days with the condition that no assistance of the Court shall be provided in future if he fails to comply with the order. The petitioner, in order to lead evidence, engaged Shri Anil Malik, an expert, to prepare his report regarding the value of the property etc. and submitted it in the Court but the respondents-decree holder filed an application under Section 151 CPC for disallowing the examination of the expert produced by the petitioner. The petitioner contested the application by filing a reply pleading therein that since issues have already been framed and opportunity has been given to lead evidence, therefore, he has a legal right to lead evidence. However, the trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 24.03.2011, allowed the application of the respondents-decree holder and disallowed the examination of the expert of the petitioner in his evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the issues have been framed, more particularly to the effect as to whether the report of the Local Commissioner is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objection and opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence in this regard by filling PF/DM/List of witnesses, the report of his expert, produced in controversion to the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, could not have been disallowed by the learned Court below. In this regard, he has relied upon two judgments of this Court in the case of National Institute of Sports v. Preminder Singh & others, 1982 CurLJ 677 and Chander Parkash Malhotra v. V.P. Malhotra, 1991 99 PunLR 606 to contend that once the objections have been raised, it cannot be summarily rejected by the Court without affording an opportunity to substantiate the objections.