Babulal vs Ramesh

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The defendants/petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 2-2-2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court, by which the trial Court rejected the application submitted by the petitioners.

Before the trial Court both the parties adduced their evidence and thereafter the case was listed for arguments on 04-09-2012. On the aforesaid date, the Court in its own passed the order that in the suit the dispute is in regard to boundaries and the defendants produced report of demarcation dated 15-11-2011. However, from the documents produced by the defendants, the position is not clear, hence, the Court ordered that the original record of the case No. 17A/12, 2010-2011 of Court of Tahsildar Raghogarh be called for and thereafter Revenue Inspector Shri Subodh Prakash Dubey, Patwari Shri Mohan Meena and Ms. Megha Rajoria be summoned. These witness were summoned by the court as witnesses. Thereafter, defendants field an application for appointment of Court Commissioner to the effect that over what portion of Survey Nos. 112 and 113/2 the plaintiff has encroachment. That application has been rejected by the trial Court.

Before the Court the plaintiff and defendants have already adduced their evidence. Thereafter, the Court also summoned record of Revenue case and also summoned the Revenue Inspector and Patwari. From their evidence, it could well be established that who is in possession over Khasra numbers as mentioned by the defendants. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners for appointment of Court Commissioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreepat Vs. Rajendra Prasad and Others, and the judgments of this court in the cases of Keshav Singh Vs. Dhantobai and Others, and Durga Prasad Vs. Mst. Parveen and Others, nd submitted that to ascertain the fact of encroachment it is necessary to appoint the Commissioner. In my opinion, there is enough evidence on record before the Court and revenue employees have also been summoned by the Court. Hence, from the facts available before the Court, it could very well be ascertained that who is in possession over the Khasra numbers as mentioned by the defendants. For the purpose of controverting the evidence, the appointment of Commissioner is not required. Hence, the court has exercised the discretion properly. I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.