DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. BISHAMBER NATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintained by the petitionerapplicant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent). Respondents No. 2 to 6 are defendants in the Court below and now they are impleaded as proforma respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.11.2014, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chamba, District Chamba, HP in Civil Suit No. 90 of 2010, titled as Bishambher Nath Vs Devinder Kumar and others, wherein the application filed by the petitioner for placing on record the copy of demarcation report stands dismissed by the Court below with a prayer to allow the application.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondents maintained a Civil Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the petitioner and proforma respondents, their agents, servants and workmen from raising any construction over the best and valuable portion of the joint land comprised in Khasra Nos. 681, 682, 684, 727, Khatauni No. 74/81, situated at Mouza Rei, Pargana Sach, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, as per jamabandi for the year, 2004-05 and also for mandatory injunction that if during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner and proforma defendants raised any construction or change the nature thereof, the suit land be ordered to be restored to its original position.

(3.) The petitioner filed written statement and besides taking preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability, locus standi, estopple, the petitioner denied that he has raised any construction and submitted that it is the respondent who is raising construction over the suit land. Application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) and under Order 16 Rule 2 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was moved by the petitioner in the trial Court, wherein, the petitioner pleaded that the Kanungo inspected the land on 6.8.2013 and gave its inspection report and has reported that it is the respondent/plaintiff, who has constructed a double storeyed house recently. The case of the petitioner is that this report was not within his knowledge as it came into existence only after the filing of the written statement. It is prayed that the aforesaid documents are essential for adjudication of the case.