RAM DULARA Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 07.07.2015 (Annexure P5), rendered by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Moga, the application moved by the petitionerdefendant for appointment of the Local Commissioner, under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, has since been rejected.

(2.) In an application moved by the petitionerdefendant, it was maintained that as parties to the lis have placed on record their respective site plans in support of their claims, it would be necessary to inspect the disputed premises at site. Thus, a Local Commissioner be appointed to ascertain the veracity of both the site plans as also the factum regarding possession. In response, respondent-plaintiff opposed the application being not maintainable. Particularly, when the respondent-plaintiff had already led his evidence and proved the site plan that was brought on record.

(3.) On a consideration of the matter in issue, the trial court declined the prayer of the petitioner-defendant and concluded as thus: