Balak Ram and Another vs Mohan Lal and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—The dispute involved in these two cases is similar. Though these two petitions are directed against the order rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint in view of the order which I propose to pass, it is necessary to give certain facts.

The plaintiffs claim to be owners of the suit property mentioned in the head note of the plaints. They also averred in the suits that the defendants are using bulldozers, etc. to construct a road over the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs. A stay order was passed restraining the defendants from interfering in the land of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defendants filed a written statement in which it was stated that the road in question had been constructed between the period 2004-2005 and funds for this purpose were made available through the Government agency and the stand of the defendants was that at that time even the plaintiffs had contributed to the construction of the road. Then the plaintiff filed an application to amend the suit and both the plaintiffs now claim that the road which goes through the portion of their land was constructed by them and is in their private land and not meant for the use of any other member of the public.

During the course of argument, I impressed upon the parties that these disputes are between co-villagers and therefore, an attempt should be made to put an end to the same. Plaintiffs are represented by Shri V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. The respondents are represented by Shri O.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate and Shri K.R. Kashyap, Advocate. Respondents Mohan Lal, Liaq Ram, Het Ram and Roshan Lal are present in person. The parties on the suggestion of the Court agreed that in case a Local Commissioner is appointed to visit the spot and he in his report indicates what is the extent of the road, they shall not have any objections to maintaining the road in the same position as it exits today subject to only condition that it should be made usable. In case the report the Local Commissioner comes on these aspects it may put an end to all the disputes between the parties.

At the suggestion of the learned Counsel for the parties Sh. Shyam Verma, Advocate, practicing at Theog is appointed as Local Commissioner. He shall be handed over a copy of the pleadings of the parties by Shri V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. He shall then visit the spot after giving the notice to Shri V.S. Chauhan and Shri K.S. Kashyap, Advocates, who may then inform their clients, who may also remain present at the spot. The Local Commissioner shall make arrangements for taking a Video as well as photographs of the road and submit the same to the Court in a CD. The Local Commissioner may also make any suggestion which he feels are appropriate to arrive at an amicable settlement between the parties and if possible he can get the matter settled at the spot itself.

Tentative fees of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 15,000/- in both the cases to be shared by the plaintiffs and the defendants in equal share. The Local Commissioner is requested to submit his report to the Court by 29th October, 2010 and the matter be listed in Court on 2nd November, 2010.

In view of the fact that a Local Commissioner is being appointed the learned trial Court is directed to defer the proceedings in the civil suit and fix a date for effective hearing in the civil suits in the month of December, 2010. The parties are directed to present in the Court on the next date.