KULDEEP KUMAR Vs. RIKHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.8.2010 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application under Order 26 Rule 9, CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land and in the alternative, a suit for possession by demolition of the structure raised by the defendants was filed.

(3.) THE provisions of Order 26 Rule 9, CPC are not meant to be used to help a party to fill up the lacunae in its case. THE plaintiff led evidence in the case, and if as now claimed by him, the defendants had already violated the stay order and had removed the Pucca Banna, what prevented the plaintiff to lead evidence in this regard at the relevant time and for applying for appointment of a Local Commissioner at that time. THEre is no explanation in the application in this regard. In case the Commissioner is appointed at this stage, it would virtually amount to denovo trial of the suit. THErefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.