The central legal point established is the appointment of a Local Commissioner to measure the properties and prepare a site plan, with the restriction on giving an opinion on amalgamation.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29th July, 2016 by which three applications, filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), have been disposed of by the Ld. Civil Judge. The main contest is in respect of the application seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner and the application for leading additional evidence.

2. The dispute arises out of a suit for possession filed by the Plaintiff – Shri Ram Nath Garg. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the property bearing no.4/47, forming part of property No.605, area measuring 50 Sq. Yards out of Khasra No.780, min. situated in the area of village Chandrawali, Shahdara in the abadi of block No.4, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (hereinafter, the “suit property”). The case of the Plaintiff is that the Petitioner/Defendant – Shri Roshan Lal (hereinafter, “Defendant”) is running a factory in property bearing no.4/48. Owing to the fact that the Defendant had requested for usage of property no.4/47, the same was given to the Defendant for use and occupation, however, the same was not vacated and hence, the suit for possession. The prayer in the suit reads as under:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly pass a decree for eviction directing thereby the defendant to handover the possession of property no.4/47, Sarvaria Market, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32, as shown red in the site plan filed herewith to the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. In the written statement, the stand of the Defendant is stated as under:

“Reply to para. 2

In this paragraph the plaintiff has committed brazen perjury and a separate application under Section 340, Cr. P. C. read with sections 191, 199 and 181 of I.P.C. has already been moved separately. The plaintiff has averred in this paragraph that the defendant has been running a factory in the adjacent property, property No. 4/48, Sarvaria Market, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. The plaintiff has further averred that the defendant approached the plaintiff for a temporary place for a few days and the plaintiff has further averred that on the basis of such a request the plaintiff agreed to give the possession to the defendant for a few days subject to the defendant handing over the possession immediately on opening of a show-room by the defendant near Sarvaria Market, Shahdara, Delhi-32. The plaintiff has further averred that the defendant agreed nt to create any smoke screen in the matter in respect of premises No. 4/47, Sarvaria Market, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. The contents of this paragraph are denied because they are absolutely false except to the extent that the premises in possession of the defendant bearing No. 4/48, Sarvaria Market, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 is in possession of the defendant. Premises described as 9/99, Bazar Gali, Near Sarvaria Market, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 in this paragraph are not belonging to the defendant but belong to the major sons of the defendant who are running their own show-room there. Rest of the averments are denied since there is not an iota of truth about the same. The defendant at no point of time approached the plaintiff with a request to take possession of the alleged premises with a request to take possession of the alleged premises bearing alleged No. 4/47, Sarvaria Market, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. The defendant has continuously been in possession of the premises bearing No. 4/48, Sarvaria Market, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 and therefore was never in need of any other place as alleged by the plaintiff. In fact the plaintiff has made this false averment with the sole purpose of misleading the court and cheat the defendant whom he wishes to dispossess by abuse of the process of court. The plaintiff must be put to strict proof of his averments and once again the defendant humbly prays that the plaintiff has mischievously