PADAM SINGH Vs. PRITHVIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff's application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Local Commissioner in order to verify the spot position over the suit land was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 23/10/2019. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has assailed this order by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Civil Suit was instituted by the petitioner against the respondents seeking declaration to the effect that he was owner Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes in possession of 2/3rd suit land on account of adverse possession by ouster of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and to the extent of 1/3rd on account of purchase of suit land from one of its co-owners. The plaint specifically pleaded that the suit had been filed for mere declaration. That the plaintiff was already in the possession of the suit land and the defendants did not possess even an inch of the suit land.

(3.) The respondents-defendants contested the suit. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Evidence was concluded by the parties on 22/12/2016 and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner. This application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 23/10/2019 holding that there was no boundary dispute between the parties and it was not a case where facts necessitated appointment of Local Commissioner. It is in the aforesaid background that the plaintiff has assailed the order dtd. 23/10/2019.