Heard Mr. T. Gogonchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Th.Tolpishak, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal dated 21.12.2000 passed in Judicial Misc. Case No.38 of 2000 (Ref: Original Suit No. 47 of 1999) wherein and where under the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal had allowed the application filed by the respondents/plaintiff allowing the Judicial Misc. Case No. 38 of 2000 filed by the respondents/plaintiff for holding local inspection or local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 read with section 151 of the CPC.

3. The short factual matrix for filing of the revision petition is that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the original suit No.47 of 1999 in the court of Civil Judge(Junior Division) , Imphal against the present petitioner/defendant and that the relief sought in the said original suit No.47 of 1999 are :- decree for mandatory injunction for restraining the petitioner/defendant from further construction on brick wall, for recovery of possession of the suit land after demolition of the suit land etc. and also for demolition of the boundary wall said to have been constructed inside the land of the respondents/plaintiffs. The said original suit no.47 of 1999 was filed basing on the fact that the homestead of the petitioner/defendant which is more fully described as 'Scheduled A' to the plaint which lies adjacent to the northern side of the petitioner/defendant's land which is more carefully described at 'Scheduled B' to the plaint. And in July, 1999, the petitioner/defendant had raised a RCC wall (32 feets in length) and subsequently, compound wall encroaching upon their land, i.e., land of the respondents/plaintiffs described in Scheduled A to the plaint. It is also alleged that the respondents/plaintiffs encroached upon a portion of the land measuring 2 ½ feets north - south and 55 feets east - west more fully described in 'Scheduled C' of the plaint. It is clear from the record, petitioner/defendant earlier filed writ statement denying the allegations/assertions of the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint and also the petitioner/defendant also asserted that there is well defined boundary line between the land described in “Scheduled A' and that of the petitioner/defendant homestead and also that the adjacent boundary land between the two lands were adjacent since the time of fore-fathers i.e. the case of the petitioner/defendant . While the said Original Suit No.47 of 1999 is pending before the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal, respondents/plaintiffs filed the judicial Misc. Case No. 8(A) of 2000 praying for passing necessary order to hold a local investigation or enquiry at/over the said homestead of both parties and suit land and for also to point out the actual area of the lands of the respondents/plaintiffs and petitioner/defendant . The said Judicial Misc. case No.8 (A) of 2000 had been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division by passing the judgment and order dated 12.2.2000. From the perusal of the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal dated 18.2.2000, it is clear that the said Judl.Misc.Case No. 8(A).2000 had been rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division on perusal of the Para No.6 of the plaint. This court carefully perused the Judl. Misc.case No.8(A) 2000 and it appears that the prayer sought for in the present Judl.Misc.Case No.8(A) 2000 is for investigation and enquiry over the homestead of both parties and also to point out the actual area of both respondents/plaintiffs and petitioner/defendant .

4. After dismissal of the Judl.Misc.Case No.8 (A)/2000, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a Judl.Misc.Case No.38 of 2000(Ref. Original Suit no. 47 of 1999) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal. The said Judl.Misc.Case No.38 of 2000 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on the ground that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document