RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 30/5/2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Hoshiarpur, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property as shown in the headnote of the plaint with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. Plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for appointment of Local Commissioner for the demarcation of the land.

(3.) The suit was filed in respect of Khasra No.966/5(1-0) on the ground that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner in possession of the same. The defendants have their land towards eastern side of the suit land. Defendants have raised dispute with regard to the passage as their land falls in village Saleran which is having no access to the land. Chintpurni Hoshiarpur road is situated towards north side of Khasra No.966/5 and the land of the defendants does not about the said road, but they are adamant to have the passage of the land through the land of the plaintiff. Defendants have also dismantled the tin shed constructed by the plaintiff in his own land. Plaintiff claimed that in order to settle the dispute and for correct determination, the suit land bearing Khasra No.966/5 needs to be demarcated by some revenue official in order to ascertain actual location. With this background, prayer was made for appointment of revenue official as Local Commissioner, who may visit the spot and conduct demarcation in respect of actual and factual position of the passage in dispute. In essence the plaintiff sought indulgence of the trial Court to collect evidence on his behalf so as to strengthen his case by process of the Court.