The court clarified that allowing additional evidence for demarcation in boundary disputes is essential and does not constitute filling up a lacuna, reinforcing the importance of accurate boundary determination.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case involves a dispute over land boundaries, where the respondent-plaintiff claims encroachment by the petitioners-defendants, supported by a demarcation report indicating encroachment (!) .

2. The trial court dismissed the suit primarily because the demarcation was not conducted according to proper procedures, and the report was deemed invalid. The court also held that the plaintiff's remedy was against their vendor, not the defendants (!) (!) .

3. The first appellate court allowed an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation, recognizing that demarcation was essential for a just resolution of the boundary dispute. This decision was based on the importance of accurate boundary determination and the need to prevent prejudice to any party (!) (!) (!) .

4. The senior counsel for the petitioners argued that permitting additional evidence or applications for demarcation after the suit's dismissal would be inappropriate, as it could fill procedural lacunae and lead to endless litigation. They emphasized that evidence should be produced by the parties and not collected by the court on their behalf (!) (!) (!) .

5. The respondents' counsel contended that demarcation was necessary for a fair adjudication, especially since the initial demarcation was not conducted in accordance with law, and that the court's decision to allow the application was justified to ensure a proper resolution (!) .

6. The court acknowledged that the dispute was solely about boundaries and that demarcation is crucial for the correct adjudication of boundary disputes. It emphasized that failure to conduct proper demarcation procedures should not lead to dismissal of the case but rather to corrective measures, such as appointing a Local Commissioner (!) (!) .

7. The court clarified that allowing an application for additional evidence, in this context, does not constitute filling a lacuna but is a necessary step for the just resolution of the dispute. It highlighted that procedural irregularities in demarcation reports should lead to remedies like fresh demarcation, not the dismissal of the entire suit (!) (!) .

8. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, endorsing the appellate court's decision to permit demarcation and additional evidence as a pragmatic approach to resolve boundary issues fairly (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , assails the order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurugram, vide which application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') by the respondent-plaintiff (Usha Gupta) was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a civil suit (Annexure P-1) was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff (Smt. Usha Gupta) for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners-defendants (M/s Engineers Mech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others). The case set up was that the respondent-plaintiff was owner in possession of land (fully described in the plaint) measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas (1/3rd share of land measuring 22 kanals 3 marlas), situated within the revenue estate of Village Harsaru, District Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') purchased by the respondent-plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 02.05.2007 (Annexure P-2).

2.1 Upon an application having been moved by the respondent-plaintiff, the land was demarcated by the competent authority and it was found that the petitioners-defendants had encroached upon land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas owned by the respondent-plaintiff and had erected a wall on the said land.

2.2 Upon demarcation having been carried out, the respondent-plaintiff requested the petitioners-defendants to remove the encroachment but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Eventually, legal notice dated 13.10.2018 was issued, which also did not yield any result except for a formal reply denying the factum of encroachment.

2.3 . Under the circumstances, the suit was filed seeking a declaration as regards ownership and mandatory injunction to the petitioners-defendants to remove the encroachment. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought.

2.4 The suit was opposed by the petitioners-defendants and the factum of encroachment was denied. It was averred that the demarcation report was not a legal and valid report. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurugram, the suit was dismissed.

2.5 It was held that the alleged encroachment, if any, was existing even prior to the purchase of the land by the respondent-plaintiff and, therefore, it would be the predecessor/vendor of the plaintiff, who would have a cause of action, if any, to file a suit for possession. It was also held that the only remedy that the respondent-plaintiff had was to sue her vendor for refund of the sale consideration or for damages. It was held that the demarcation had not been conducted in accordance with instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. It was further held that the respondent-plaintiff could have moved an application during the pendency of the suit to appoint Local Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation.

2.6 Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, an appeal was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (Annexure P-5) was moved by the respondent-plaintiff seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation of the suit land.

2.7 The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P6). By way of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, the said application was allowed, leading to filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard le