RAM KISHAN TAPARIA Vs. SHYAMLAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 15.5.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD) Nokha District Bikaner by which he rejected the application to appoint a commissioner.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on earlier occasion the petitioner had filed a revision petition against an order refusing to allow the cross-examination of the commissioner under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC and also for cross-examination of the opposite party on the affidavits. The matter was decided in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 842/99 on 1.4.1999 and looking to the facts and circumstances it was directed that the petitioner would be free to move a fresh application for appointment of commissioner. When the petitioner moved application, the same has been rejected without reference to even the earlier order of the High Court. He submitted that it was necessary to appoint a commissioner in the suit. It has been submitted that other shopkeepers have put their goods in front of their shops and have also constructed racks for the purpose. It has been submitted that it is to be looked by the commissioner as to what is the width of the road or weather the road is obstructed as the same not been disclosed in the earlier report of the commissioner.