Lashkari Ram and Another vs Kulwant Singh and Others

V.K. Mehrotra, Actg. C.J.

Heard Counsel.

By the impugned order the trial Judge has over-ruled the objections raised to the report of the local commissioner and has confirmed the report. The grievance of the applicants is that the various objections which have been enumerated as grounds in the present memorandum of revision were taken by him, but were not considered by the trial Judge while disposing of his objections to the report of the local commissioner. The further grievance is that certain observations have been made in the impugned order touching the merits of the suit which may prejudice the case of the Defendant-Applicant.

The parties are not at issue on the question that the report which has been confirmed by the trial Judge has been confirmed subject to the evidence led by the parties in this case. The various objections which have been enumerated in the memorandum of revision may be raised by the Defendant-applicant at the time of final arguments in the suit as part of his submissions against the report. The observations which, according to the learned Counsel for the applicant, are contained in the impugned order confirming the report of the local commissioner touching the merits of the suit are, in law, tentative in nature and do not constitute a final determination by the court on the merits of the suit. It is obvious that the entire matter shall be at large when the learned Judge would proceed to decide the suit.

I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. The revision petition shall stand disposed of, with no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties within a week with which the parties shall appear before the trial court on June 25, 1988 and the learned Judge would then proceed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.