TRILOK SINGH Vs. NARDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner (plaintiff) against the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, in CMA No. 263/2013 in Civil Suit No. 153/2006, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a revenue expert as a Local Commissioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2013 and allow the application under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 CPC.

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioner that he had filed an application for appointment of Local Commissioner on the ground that he had obtained an information under the Right to Information Act, which disclosed that the respondent (defendant) had four poultry farms located at different khasra numbers, but there was no such entry in the revenue record. In order to know in which khasra number poultry farms of the respondent are located, it was claimed that the appointment of the Local Commissioner as a revenue expert was must in order to reach at the right conclusion to find out the manner and extent and to know on what khasra numbers the poultry farms are situate.

(3.) The respondent contested the application by taking preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the application. On merits, it was contended that the plaintiff had already filed an application under Order 26, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code on 22.03.2011 and the revenue expert was appointed as a Local Commissioner, who demarcated the suit land and gave a detailed report. Now the petitioner had come up with a new false story just to mislead the Court. It was also contended that the report of the Local Commissioner was already on record and the present petition had been filed to mislead the Court.