2011 (2) H.L.R. 804
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J.
Smt. Daya Sharma & another - Petitioners
Versus
Suraj Mani - Respondent
CMPMO No. 357 of 2010
Decided On: 23.12.2010
Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. - Appointment of Local Commissioner - The court upheld the appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land based on the necessity to determine the extent of encroachment, as supported by the findings in a previous court decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was dismissed, leading to an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief of mandatory injunction was declined due to lack of demarcation report, and it was necessary to appoint a Local Commissioner to determine the extent of encroachment, as supported by a previous court decision.
Issues: The main issue was the necessity of appointing a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land to determine the extent of encroachment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need for demarcation to ascertain the extent of encroachment, as established in a previous court decision.
Final Decision: The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed, and the pending application(s) were also dismissed. The parties were directed to appear before the learned District Judge.
V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral):
The present petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge allowing an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Local Commissioner and directing that Tehsildar, Sadar, be appointed as Local commissioner to demarcate the suit land.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent, was dismissed. An application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. was filed before the first Appellate Court, which considered the question that the relief of mandatory injunction was declined by the Court below since only a Tatima was produced in evidence and no demarcation report was produced for just determination of the case and the fact that as to whether the petitioners have encroached upon the suit land and to what extent and if so, during the pendency of the suit, it is necessary that Local Commissioner should be appointed to demarcate the land and give his report accordingly. A reference was also made to a decision of this Court in Brahm Dutt Vs. Prem Chand, 2000 (1) SLJ 431, wherein similar question arose and it was held by this Court that Local Commissioner should have been appointed to find out the extent of encroachment. The said decision clearly applies to the present case, which was relied upon by the learned District Judge. The findings recorded by the learned District Judge, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference by this Court.
3. The present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending application(s) if any. A copy of the order alongwith record be sent to the Court below. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 15th February, 2011.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.