NARAYAN SINGH Vs. JAGAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS dispute in the civil suit No. 66 of 1980 is whether certain shops constructed by the petitioners are in Khasra No. 543 or 544. The parties led evidence and thereafter on the application of the petitioners a Commissioner was appointed for inspecting the site. He submitted a report, which ostensibly goes against the petitioner. He thereafter applied before the court for the appointment of another Commissioner and this application was rejected on 18 -9 -1987 by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Karauli. Against this order he has preferred Revision Petition No. 105 of 1988. Thereafter he moved another application for seeking permission of the court for examining the Commissioner and this was also rejected by the order dated 3rd November, 1987. Against this he has preferred Revision Petition No. 38 of 1988.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Commissioner has in his report not given the measurement of the disputed land and shops, but on the opinion of the Girdavar and Patwari mentioned that the shops are in Khasra No. 544. Placing reliance on Order 26 Rule 10, CPC, it is contended that the report of the Commissioner as well as the evidence taken by him forms the part of the record, and the court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties may examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to the manner in which he had made the investigation. According to the petitioner, it is necessary to bring on record as to how the investigation has been made and how the report has been prepared before it can be acted upon by the court. Reliance has been placed on Hansraj v. Nathumal AIR 1929 Lahore 782, wherein it has been held that the party objecting to the report of the Commissioner inaccurate is entitled to substantiate the contention.

(3.) I have considered the various contentions raised on behalf of both the sides. It is true that the High Court in revision can interfere only when it is satisfied that the subordinate court has committed any jurisdictional error and that if the order is not varied or reversed it would occasion to a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the parties against whom it was made. Limiting the jurisdiction of the High Court by this provision makes it clear that it should not interfere with every order passed during the course of a suit, or an innocuous order which does not decide the rights and obligations of the parties in any manner. However the question whether a particular order can be said to effect the rights and obligations of a party or not, would depend upon the order itself.