DEEP RAM Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -revisionist had instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering, on, the land/Galli purportedly owned and possessed by the plaintiff comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 172, Min 316, Khasra No. 259, 260 measuring 0 -01 -74 hectares. During the course of hearing of the suit before the learned trial Court, an, application on behalf of the plaintiff was preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, for, restraining the defendant -respondent, to carry out any construction over the suit land, during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) TO rest the controversy, which has erupted interse the parties, the learned trial Court had ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner for carrying out a demarcation of the suit property. The Naib Tehsildar, Kasauli was appointed as Local Commissioner to carry out, the demarcation of the contiguous estates. He submitted his report wherein he disclosed that ownership and possession of the "Galli" comprised in Khasra No. 261 and 262 vested in the defendant -respondent. Nonetheless, the plaintiff -revisionist, filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, communicating therein the fact that the report of the Local Commissioner, is, not to be relied, as, the demarcation has not been carried out in accordance with law. Considering the matter as laid before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court was, of, the opinion that the report of the demarcating officer, cannot, at the stage of rendition of decision, on, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 filed before it, at, the instance of the plaintiff, be, construed to be a potent material, on strength whereof at that stage, the ownership and possession over qua the Galli, could be determined. Consequently, the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff -applicant was partly allowed by the learned trial Court, in as much, as, the learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit property. The respondent -defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Solan, who, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

(3.) ANY observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.