NIHACHALDAS Vs. KAVITA KARAMCHANDANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 02.02.2010, in so far as it dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(3.) The contention of the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff'), before the trial court was as also is, before this court, is that the defendant had made unauthorised constructions without the prior permission from the Municipal Corporation Ajmer. He submits that the appointment of commissioner was necessary to make a report in this regard after a local inspection and the learned trial court ought to have exercised its discretion in the facts of the case to appoint a commissioner for making a local inspection and put on the trial court's record the factual position. The trial court however failed to duly exercise its discretion. This court should under its supervisory powers pass a corrective order.