KAMALA DEVI Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 19/8/2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner/revenue Patwari or any other competent person to visit the spot and to submit a report regarding the actual and factual position of the suit property after demarcation, has been dismissed.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that she filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession over the plot measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, i.e. 22/120 share out of 6 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 391(6-0), Khewat No. 4, Khatauni No. 57, as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018, situated in village Narainpura, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka. It is pleaded that originally the land in question belonged to one Sumit Kumar, who sold 22/120 share out of 6 kanals to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dtd. 28/6/2022. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 also purchased 77/120 share out of the same khasra number from Sumit Kumar vide registered sale deed dtd. 31/1/2023. After the said purchase, the defendant started raising construction and attempted to encroach upon the property of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, requested that before raising any construction, proper demarcation of the land be carried out so that both parties may confine their possession within their respective shares. When her request was not heeded to, she was constrained to file the present suit.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff, who had purchased only part of the land in Khasra No. 391, had already raised construction on the suit property as admitted in the site plan filed by her, and that this fact could be verified by appointment of a Local Commissioner. Issues were framed, and thereafter the plaintiff moved the present application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot inspection and demarcation. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application vide impugned order dtd. 19/8/2025 on the ground that the Court cannot be used as a tool for collection of evidence and that it is for the parties to lead cogent evidence in support of their respective cases.