The conduct of parties seeking additional evidence is crucial; repeated applications dismissed indicate intent to delay proceedings, warranting rejection of new requests.

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. During the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed for appointment of the Local Commissioner and vide order dated 08.09.2010, Sh.Virender Singh, Advocate, who was present in the Court, at the relevant time, was appointed as Local Commissioner. Thereupon, report was submitted before the trial Court and thereupon, learned trial Court had passed the order dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) and the essential part of the said order is reproduced in verbatim, as herein given:-

“On perusal of the case file, it is noticed that vide the order dated 8.9.2010, Shri Virender Singh, Advocate was appointed as the Local Commissioner in the present case with the direction to report about the existing position of the suit property regarding construction, if any raised over the same. The report of the Local Commissioner has since been received and opportunity for objections to the report was provided. In these circumstances there is no requirement for arguments on the report of the Local Commissioner because the report of the LC shall be considered at the time of disposing of the suit. Hence, on the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:-

XXXX XXX XX XXXX

No other issue is pressed or claimed before me. The burden of proof is not disputed. Let the PWs be now produced on 30.5.2012 at own responsibility. The list of witnesses, DM, if any, be filed within 15 days.”

8. After framing of the issues, the case was adjourned for production of witnesses for 30.05.2012. Thereafter, the contesting respondents again moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, for appointment of Local Commissioner, which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 21.03.2013, while stating that the report of the Local Commissioner is already on record and there is no need to appoint another Local Commissioner. Further, it was also observed that moreover, the plaintiffs are at liberty to demarcate his land by approaching the revenue authorities. The copy of the order dated 21.03.2013 is Annexure P-2. Thereafter, again respondents-plaintiffs led evidence and their evidence was closed by order.

9. After the evidence was led by the plaintiffs, the evidence of the defendants was also recorded and the same was closed by order vide order dated 26.05.2014 and the matter was adjourned to 03.07.2014 for rebuttal evidence, if any and for arguments. The order dated 26.05.2014 (