The main legal point established is that a Court must consider relevant provisions of law and confine its decision within the scope of the application, ensuring findings are sustainable in the eye of the law.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 31.08.2005 by which the petitioners application under the heading “Order 39 Rule 7, CPC” was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur.

3. This Court has no hesitation in observing that the learned trial Judge namely, Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur either was not knowing the law on the subject of appointment of Commissioner or if he was knowing law on the subject, then the position is much more grave.

4. On an application for appointment of Commissioner, the learned trial Judge recorded findings which are in Para No. 3 of the impugned order. Para No. 3 of the impugned order reads as under:-

Þ3&i{kdkjku dh cgl lqudj i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fnukad 18-06-2005 ds vokMZ ls vkjchVsªVj }kjk dqy 58900 oxZ ehVj Hkwfe ij tgka 106 edku fufeZr gks x;s gS] mu edkuksa dh fLFkfr ckcr- izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ dks tks funsZk fn;s gS] mudh ikyuk ckcr- nksuksa i{k ;FkkfLFkfr j[kh gqbZ gksuk crkrs gSA bl vokMZ ds ek/;e ls tks [kqbZ]yh tehu vizkFkhZ tks/kk.kk jh;y ,LVsV dks izkIr gqml tehu dks odhy vizkFkhZ fofHkUu O;fä;kas ds uke tfj;s iathc) cspku fuLrkfjr dj ns

uk crkrs gS] tks leLr Øsrk bl izdj.k esa i{kdkj ugha gSA odhy vizkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd [kqyh iMh tehu lhfyax dkuwu lekIr gks tkus ls tks/kk.kk jh;y ,LVsV dh lEifr Fkh] ftl lEifr dks izkIr djus dk ;k ftl lEifr ij ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kokus dk x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr dk dksbZ vf /kdkj gh ugha gSA ekuuh; ftyk U;k;k/khk egksn; vodkk ij gS rFkk dehkuj dh fu; qfä ekSdk eqvk;uk gsrq dh tk; ;k ugha dsoy bl fcUnq ij gh bl U;k;ky; dks vko;d iz-fr dk vkosnu gksus ls fopkj.k dj vknsk ikfjr djuk gSA ;g fLFkfr fufoZokn gS fd fnukad 18-06-2005 ds vokMZ dks izkFkhZ us bl U;k;ky; esas pqukSrh nh gSA ;g fLFkfr Hkh fufoZokn gS fd tehu dk ekfydkuk gd tks/kk.kk jh;y Moyies.V fyfeVsM vizkFkhZ dk gS rFkk izkFkhZ ,d ,LVsfonk ds rgr x`g fuekZ.k djus okyh a tks dk;Z izkjEHk fd;k] og orZ

lgdkjh lfefr gS ftlus o"kZ 1984 eseku o"kZ 2005 rd vFkkZr 21 o"kksZa ls tkjh gS ¼1½

¼3½ vizkFkhZ bl vokMZ ds rgr vfxze dk; okgh Hkwfe ds fuLrkj.k

¼4½ izdj.k ds rF;kas Li"V gS fd kgjh Hkwfe ds vf/kxzysku g.k dks x o jq,DV 1976 ds izHkko ls cpkus ds fy;s vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ ds i{k esa bdjkj dj xjhcksa dks vkokl cukdj vkoafVr djus dh ;kstuk cukbZ Fkh rFkk 21 o"kksZa dh vof /k easu rks dksbZ xjhc miyC/k gqvk] u gh mu xjhcksa dks lkjh Hkwfe ij vkokl cukdj fn;s x;s rFkk tc 1976 dk ;g fo/kku okil ys fy;k ;FkkfLFkfr gS] og iapkV ds fu.kZ; fnukad 18-06-2005 ds v/khu gS] ml ;FkkfLFkfr dk mYy?kau gksus ij izZkFkhZ i{k oS/kkfud dk;okgh dj ldrk gSA mijksä lexz foospu dsoy vknsk 39 fu;e 7 flfoy kFkZuk&i= ds fuLrkj.k ds iz;ks"V;k izfØ;k lafgrk ds iztu ls fd;k x;k foospu ekuk tk,xkA izFken`bl foospu dk bl izdj.k dh vU; fdlh dk;Zokgh ij dksbZ izHkko ugha gksxkAß

5. For the convenience, the relevant portion in the impugned order has been underlined and nubmers have been marked in the order so that the findings recorded by the trial Judge in such proceedings may be clear.

6. This is very unfortunate that the learned trial Judge by exceeding his all jurisdiction and by breaking all the barriers of law after recording those findings as mentioned above in last observed that whatever has been observed on the points in the impugned order, they are only for the purpose of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 7, CPC and it will not affect any other proceedings. This observation is only desperate effort of the learned Judge and to take shelter behind this observation. The findings appear to have been recorded purposefully. It appears and as observed above, the Court below, while considering the application for appointment of Commissioner, could not have gone into all those facts which were mentioned and which were considered and on which, the findings have been recorded by the Court below.

7. It will be worthwhile to mention a few facts only which will show that under what circumstnaces, the impugned