GURSHARAN KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. GURMIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Gursharan Kaur and Sukhdev Singh have filed this revision petition against Gurmit Kaur respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, vide which the application of respondent moved under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC was allowed and Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and to report about actual and factual position of the suit property

(2.) From the record, I find that Gursharan Kaur and Sukhdev Singh filed suit against Gumit Kaur for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from diverting the waste, filthy, sullage and rainy water etc. of the house of defendant shown yellow in the site plan attached into the house premise of plaintiffs shown green in the site plan through any portion marked CD in the site plan where the plaintiffs have installed the gate of their house and the defendant has got no right to put any type of water of her house premises shown yellow in the site plan which are in existence on both sites of the public street shown red in the site plan and marked as ABCDEF as the said street is blind at point marked CD in the site plan and the defendant has got no right to interfere in any manner whatsoever into the house premise of plaintiff etc. and for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the roof from public street in the site plan shown red in the site plan and further to remove the wooden shutter affixed on the outer side of the doors of the house of the defendant.

(3.) An application was filed by the defendant for appointment of a Local Commissioner by stating that Local Commissioner should visit the spot and report about the actual and factual position of the suit property/court yard of the house of the defendant which is shown in yellow colour in the site plan produced by the defendant and no water is stagnating in it and further to report about natural flow of the water of the house of the defendant as well as court yard of the house of the defendant and whether level of the property of the defendant is downing towards northern site towards main street and whether the level of property situated towards western side of point AB in the site plan produced by the defendant is two feet high than the level of court yard of the house of the defendant and to report regarding actual and factual position of the gate in question and about the height of roof from the court yard of the house of the defendant and actual and factual position of the disputed Zali doors etc. and further level of the drain shown in the site plan produced by the defendant in blue colour is downing toward northern side etc.