SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 223 of 1992, dated 28.5.1981 whereby he has rejected the objections filed by the defendants (petitioners herein) to the report of the Local Commissioner. Though Mr.Harish Bahal, Advocate, had raised a contention with regard to the very maintainability of the revision petition and had contended that the revision petition is not maintainable on the ground that the order in question does not decide the suit, I have not gone into the question at this stage since in my view even otherwise the order is correct and calls for no interference.

(2.) THE plaintiff ( respondent herein) filed a suit for possession and injunction against the defendants on the ground that they had encroached upon the suit land. The suit was decreed. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, who remanded the matter to the learned trial court for getting the demarcation done by appointing a Local Commissioner. In the judgment of the learned District Judge it had been observed that the Local Commissioner shall carry out the demarcation in the light of the entries appearing in the Latha as well as the Musavi. The learned trial court appointed a Local Commissioner who carried out the demarcation and gave his report. The main objection to this report is that the report has been given on the basis of the Musavi and the Latha has not been taken into consideration. The learned trial court has rejected the objections. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) IN Hari Ram Vs. Ratti 1974 ILR 919 wherein the trial court admitted the documents in evidence, this court held that a revision would not be maintainable against such an order admitting the documents in evidence.