Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI
Dhire through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Randhir – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARCHANA PURI, J.
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 04.03.2017 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application filed by the contesting respondents (plaintiff before learned trial Court), for leading additional evidence, was allowed.
2. In pursuance of the notice issued, contesting respondents made appearance through counsel.
3. Learned counsel for the parties heard.
4. The essential facts, to be noticed, as culled out from the paperbook are as follows:-
5. That, initially, the respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had filed a suit for possession of the suit land, therein stating that they are owners of khasra No.1375 to the extent of 1/3rd share, in the land comprised in Khewat No.80/84 min, Khatoni No.214 min 2 Bigha 19 Biswas and that the petitioner and another (defendants) are owner of Khasra No.1376 and now, defendants have encroached upon Khasra No.1375, shown in the site plan as ‘ABCDEFG’.
6. The petitioner-defendant made appearance and filed the written statement, thereby, asserting about respondents-plaintiffs to be neither owners nor in possession of the suit property and the suit land ‘ABCDEFG’ is part of Khasra No.1376.
7. Durin
The conduct of parties seeking additional evidence is crucial; repeated applications dismissed indicate intent to delay proceedings, warranting rejection of new requests.
The petitioner must adduce independent and reliable evidence and cannot rely on the court to collect evidence for him. The appointment of a local commissioner for the purpose of collecting evidence i....
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 de....
An order dismissing an application for appointing a Local Commissioner does not adjudicate rights and is hence not revisable, as established by prior authority.
The court established that the refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner does not affect the rights of the parties and is not subject to revision.
Irregularity in Local Commissioner's demarcation report due to non-compliance with land revenue instructions requires fresh commission, not dismissal of possession suit alleging encroachment.
Rule 9 of Order 26 of Code of Civil Procedure empowers Court to issue commission to make local investigation which may be required for purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
