Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Rama Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prabhkar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Facts, as submitted by Sri Rama Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, are that in the city of Lucknow there is a agricultural property recorded in the revenue record as Khasra No. 222 area 0.569 hectare in village Tewaripur, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District Lucknow, owned by one Smt.Satyana. On 27.5.1985, she executed sale-deed in favour of Ram Khelawan and Guddu in respect to the said property. Thereafter on 27.4.2001 Guddu transferred his half share through registered sale-deed in favour of M/s Shama Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited and on 9.6.2003 Sri Ram Khelawan transferred his half share in favour of petitioner’s society/New Meena Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited, accordingly, land was mutated by order dated 31.3.2005 passed by competent authority in favour of petitioner’s society as well as M/s Shama Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited.

3. Sri Rama Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that said societies in pursuance of its aims and objects allotted various plots to its members. However, the petitioner’s society did not allot a plot of land measuring 4400 sq. ft. over which one small room was constructed by the petitioner’s society for its office use. As the defendants and their agents are trying to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner’s society over the piece of land measuring 4400 sq. ft., at Khasra No. 222, so on 18.7.2005, so a Regular Suit No. 487 of 2005 has been filed for restraining the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the following main prayers :

Þd&;g fd tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk Áfroknhx.k o mus lg;ksfx;ksa] ,VkWVksa vkfn dks fu"ksf/kr dj fn;k tkos fd og okn i= dh èkkjk&6 esa of.kZr Hkw[kaM ij tcju dCtk u djsa rFkk oknh ds dCts esa fdlh Hkh Ádkj dk gLr{ksi u djsA

[k&;g fd gtkZ o [kpkZ oknh dks Áfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;A

x&;g fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks fd U;k;ky; Jheku th mfpr le>s cgd oknh fo:) Áfroknhx.k ikfjr djus dh Ñik djsaA

Averments made in para-6 of the plaint reads as under :

Þ;g fd Áfroknh o mlds ifr us oknh dh Hkwfe mijksDr esa ls tks fd dksVok ekxZ ds fdukjs gS rFkk mldk {ks=Qy yxHkx 4400 oxZ QqV gS ij tcju dCtk djus dk Á;kl dj jgs gSA tcfd lfefr us Hkwfe mijksDr ds mDr jksM lkbM ds IykV ftldk {ks=Qy yxHkx 4400 oxZQqV gS dks lfefr ds dk;kZy; gsrq ljf{kr fd;k rFkk mldh ckWmaMªh oky cuokbZ gSA bl Hkw[kaM esa isM+ Hkh yxs gSaA bl Hkw[kaM dh pkSgn~nh fuEu gS %

iwjc & jkLrk ¼dksVok ekxZ½

if'pe & jkLrk lfefr

mRrj & Hkw[kaM la[;k&2

nf{k.k & jkLrkAÞ

4. On 26.10.2015 defendants filed written statement thereafter parties led their evidence. By order dated 15.11.2010 suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed, the same was challenged by filing Regular Civil Appeal NO. 170 of 2010.

5. During the pendency of appeal before opposite party No. 1/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow on 15.2.2012, petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC supported by an affidavit for appointment of commission to which an objection has been filed by respondents/defendants.

6. By order dated 21.3.2012, opposite party No. 1 /Additional District Judge, Lucknow rejected the same, challenged in the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order dated 21.3.2012 submits that opposite party No. 1 while rejecting the petitioner’s application for appointment of Advocate commissioner, failed to consider that there is no dispute in respect to fact that the petitioner’s society has purchased half share of Khasra No. 222 through registered deed on 9.6.2003 and defendants No. 2 and 3 have not claimed any right in respect to any portion of Khasra No. 222, but on the other hand, in their statement, they have said that they are the owner of plots of land of Khasra Nos. 221 and 223 so in order to resolve the dispute and to ascertain whet