AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 19.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge
No.2, Bikaner, whereby the objections raised against the
Commissioner''s report by the petitioner has been turned down.
Vide order dated 07.11.2014, Advocate Shri Ashu Prakash
Pareek was appointed by the learned trial Court as Commissioner
to find out actual factual situation of the suit property. While
giving direction for appointment of the Commissioner in its order
dated 07.11.2014 the following order was passed:
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
In pursuance to the order dated 07.11.2014, the
Commissioner Shri Ashu Prakash Pareek has filed the report in
which it has been mentioned that the suit property is in the very
bad shape and it is not possible to have it utilized for dwelling of
human being and the same if used as dwelling house, may be
dangerous. Besides, the factual aspect of the matter it has also
been submitted that the house is 70-80 years old.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
observation of house being 70-80 years old was not required to be
projected in the Commissioner''s report, as the same was not in
the domain of the Commissioner to submit the age of the suit
property.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I deem it
appropriate that in pursuance to the direction for appointment of
Commissioner to submit a report, only the factual condition of the
suit property was required to be projected in the Commissioner''s
report and not the age of the property, therefore, the observation
with respect to the age of the property may not be taken into
consideration while considering the report of the Commissioner.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.