IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 9 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6517 of 2025 GIRRAJ SHARMA Versus SHRIMAN KSHETRIYA PRABANDHAK KENDRIYA BHANDARAN NIGAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner–plaintiff assailing the order dated 04/11/2025 passed by the First Civil Judge Junior Division, Morena (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in RCSA No. 183/2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking appointment of Commissioner to ascertain actual position of the disputed property, has been rejected.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner-plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction against respondent nos. 1 and 2 regarding agricultural land bearing Survey No. 2205/2, Rakwa (area) 7 Biswa, situated at Village Laalor, Tehsil and District Morena. The suit property was originally owned by the petitioner's grandfather. During life time of his grandfather, defendants No.1 and 2 Central Warehouse Corporation had started land acquisition proceeding of the land in the ownership of his grandfather. Thereafter, out of 7 Biswa land, 3 Biswa land was acquired for Central Warehouse Corporation but thereafter, only two and half Biswa of land was acquired for which 275/- rupees were paid to his grandfather. post- acquisition of 4 and half Biswa 50625 square feet land remained in the ownership of his grandfather. Respondents No.1 and 2 by encroaching the land of plaintiff has constructed a boundary wall, due to which 2808.6 square feet land become less. He had requested the respondents that they had encroached on much more area as was acquired from his grandfather, but, defendant did not pay any heed. Hence, being constrained the plaintiff preferred the aforesaid suit seeking declaration possession and injunction over the suit property. After notice, defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement. Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for the appointment of a Commissioner to demarcate the disputed land and bring the actual position of the disputed property on record. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court, however, rejected the application on the ground that the facts sought to be ascertained could be adjudicated through the regular process of leading evidence, noting that a similar application had been previously rejected on 24/04/2019 . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff before the trial court after completion of evidence, hence the reasoning assigned by the learned trial court is contrary to the record. It is contended that Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the evidence sought to be brought on record, can be submitted by leading the evidence. It is further submitted that controversy essentially relates to the demarcation of boundaries and encroachment require determination of the boundaries which can be effectively adjudicated only upon obtaining a demarcation report from a competent authority. In support of submission, counsel for petitioner relied upon the Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 671 and Kashiram Vs Rameshwar, 2016 Supreme (MP) 457. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

4. Although, this case is listed for admission, but looking to the nature of case, there is no need to hear the respondent.

5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is apparent that the dispute between the parties pertain to boundaries of the disputed land. Determination of such a factual controversy necessari