AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sheelu Nagu, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 assails the interlocutory order passed on 15.05.2013 in Civil Suit No. 3A/12 passed by District Judge, Morena by which an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC preferred by the plaintiff/respondent herein for demarcation of the suit property as reflected in the plaint map, has been allowed. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court failed to discover the real intent of collection of evidence behind the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. It is further contended that if at all demarcation was necessary then the entire property ought to have been demarcated instead of the part of the property.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case learned counsel for defendant/petitioner submits that entire property ought to have been demarcated then he has no right to object to the impugned order directing for demarcation of part of the property. It is further contended by respondent that since there was dispute regarding initiation of suit property, the Court below was well within its jurisdiction to direct for demarcation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.
Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is an enabling provision empowering the Court to carry out legal inspection for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or of ascertaining the market value of any property or the land of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits. The power contained in Rule 9 of Order 26 CPC is not restrictive but is merely circumscribed by the condition that such legal inspection can be directed if the Court deems it appropriate.
The trial Court while passing the impugned Order deemed it appropriate to direct for legal inspection. The said wisdom exercised by the trial Court allowing the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC cannot be found fault with especially when the defendant/petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice that may have visited the defendant and also that the Court below does not appear to have transgressed any of its jurisdictional limits. Accordingly, this Petition under Article 227 deserves to be and is therefore rejected sans cost.