Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Respondent No. 1 is quite plainly a proforma party, hence, on the say of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the service of notice on the respondent No. 1 is dispensed with. Thus, service is complete.

2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up on admission.

3. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.1, Sikar, Dismissing an application under O. 26 R. 9 of CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter plaintiff).

4. The petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter plaintiff) filed a suit before the Trial Court for declaration, mandatory as also permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants (hereinafter the defendants). The substratum of the plaintiff's case was that a right of way allegedly existing, as detailed in the plaint be declared as such and the defendants be restrained from obstructing the use thereof by the plaintiff. In the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC praying that a Commissioner be appointed for local inspection. The said application was opposed by the defendants stating that the issue of consideration of pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document