MUNSHI Vs. TEJVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused the impugned order dated 2. 12. 2004 whereby the Trial Court rejected the application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with 151 CPC filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has moved the application with the view to get the Commissioner appointed to ascertain the fact whether any construction has been demolished on the disputed plot in question or not.

(3.) IN case of Praga Tools Corp. Ltd. (supra), the State of Andhra Pradesh has filed objections to the findings of the Trial Court. On behalf of the appellants and the State of Andhra Pradesh it was submitted that the Trial Court could not have discarded the findings of the Court Commissioner. It was submitted that as per the orders of this Court, it was only this Court which could hear objections on the report of the Commissioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- " We see no substance in this submission. This Court had directed the Trial Court to record findings. The Trial Court may have appointed a Commissioner to carry out survey but ultimately the findings had to be recorded by the Trial Court. The report of the Commissioner could only be an aid to the Trial Court in arriving at its findings. The Trial Court has allowed parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence. The Trial Court has complied with the directions of this Court. "