Ram Chander and Another vs Ram Mehar

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 18728-CII of 2013

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 9 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly.

Main Case

Defendants have filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC (in short, CPC), challenging judgment and decree dated 17.07.2012 Annexures P-1 and P-2 passed by the trial Court thereby decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for possession of suit land measuring three marlas comprising in khasra no. 746, and also assailing order dated 29.05.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Judge thereby dismissing first appeal preferred by the defendants against judgment and decree of the trial Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

According to plaintiff''s version, defendant no. 1 had encroached upon two marlas land and defendant no. 2 had encroached upon one marla land of the plaintiff out of khasra no. 746. The defendants denied the alleged encroachment and pleaded to have raised construction about 25 years ago and also claimed ownership by adverse possession.

In first appeal, both the parties made statement on 08.05.2013 for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of the suit land and for decision of the appeal accordingly. Lower appellate Court appointed local commissioner who made demarcation and found illegal encroachment by defendants over 93 1/2 square yards (three marlas) land of the plaintiff. In view thereof and in view of statement dated 08.05.2013, the lower appellate Court has, vide order Annexure P-3, dismissed the first appeal preferred by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this revision petition.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Local commissioner satisfied only the plaintiff and not the defendants regarding the demarcation. The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. Local Commissioner was appointed on the basis of statement made by both the parties and the Local Commissioner made the demarcation depicting encroachment by defendants over the suit land belonging to the plaintiff. In addition to it, trial Court also, on the basis of the evidence on record including demarcation report made by Local Commissioner appointed by the trial Court, came to the conclusion that the defendants had encroached upon the suit land belonging to the plaintiff. Thus there are two demarcation reports recording concurrent finding that encroachment had been made by the defendants on suit land of the plaintiff.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgments of the Courts below so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

However as prayed for by counsel for the petitioners, lower appellate Court is directed to frame formal decree sheet in accordance with its order dated 29.05.2013 Annexure P-3 dismissing the first appeal preferred by the defendants. Stay application is disposed of as infructuous.