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.