RAMA SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. FRATERNITY CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nityanand Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 5, 14 and 16.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this revision application against the order dated 9.11.2000 passed by Subordinate Judge -VII, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 161/1990 (Baij Nath Singh vs. Ashok Singh andOrs.), by which the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Pleader Commissioner for local inspection of the disputed land has been rejected.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff -Fraternity Club is that the said club was established for the purpose of meeting place of members of the said club and after receiving donations the disputed land was purchased in the name of Sri Kishun Sahay, a member of the Executive Committee of the said club by two sale deeds dated 1.2.1929 for the purpose of construction of a house of club. Later on from the collection of fund from public a small karkat shed house was constructed on it. Subsequently, the said house was let out to ancestor of defendant 3rd set for keeping lime in it. Subsequently, the same was demolished and defendant 1st set started shop of Asbestus without the permission of plaintiff in violation of the terms of tenancy. Later on there was some dispute between said Shri Kishun Sahai and the Club with regard to the title over the said lands and ultimately the mutation matter was decided in favour of the club. There was other dispute between the plaintiff, defendant 1st, 2nd and 3rd set for which proceedings under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. and collusive eviction suit had also been filed. The further case was that taking benefit of the illness of the Secretary of the Club, the defendant 3rd and 4th sets kept their gumties hither and thither over an area of 1 - or 2 dhur each of the disputed land and defendant no. 21 took possession of the house of the club and started running hotel in it and dispossessed the plaintiff. Thereafter the suit was filed.