Dismissed

Manmohan Kansal v. Hem Raj

Himachal Pradesh HC24 Nov 2014CMPMO/373/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the rejection of their application for appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The High Court held the application was filed too late during final arguments and noted alternative remedies existed through revenue authorities. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Permitting the filing of a Local Commissioner application when due diligence was not exercised earlier.

Manmohan Kansal Vs Hem Raj — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CMPMO No. 373 of 2014. Decided on: 24.11.2014. Manmohan Kansal & ors. ……Petitioners. Versus Hem Raj & ors. …….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes. For the petitioners: Mr. V.D.Khidta, Advocate. For the respondents: None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral)

¶3

This petition is instituted against the order dated 28.10.2014 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, passed in CMA No. 242/6 of 2014 in Civil Suit No. 89/1 of 2008.

¶4

Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake) have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), from interfering, raising construction of any kind, whatsoever, in land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 2 min/2 & 3, bearing Khasra Nos. 92/58 and 57, measuring 79-0 bighas, situated in Mauza Kodri-Parmanand, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99.

¶5

The suit was contested by the defendants. Replication was filed. The issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 28.2.2009. The matter was listed for final arguments. At that stage, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, for appointment of Local Commissioner. The application was

¶6

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

contested by the defendants. The application was rejected by the learned trial Court on 28.10.2014. Hence, this petition.

¶9

I have heard Mr. V.D.Khidta, Advocate for the petitioners and gone through the record and order dated 28.10.2014.

¶10

The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in the year 2008. The application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been filed when the matter was listed for final arguments. The defendants have specifically averred in para 7 of the Written Statement that the Patwari and Field Kanungo had visited the spot on 5.9.2005, carried out demarcation and found that shrubs and trees were cut from Kh. Nos. 50, 48 and 58 and not from the suit land. The plaintiffs were already aware about this position. The issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 28.2.2009. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have encroached upon any portion of the suit land, during the pendency of the suit and thus the demarcation was necessary. The application was filed at a very belated stage. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to collect evidence under the garb of filing application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The plaintiffs, as rightly observed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, have alternative remedy to approach the revenue authorities for fixing the boundaries of the land. There is neither any illegality nor perversity in the order dated 28.10.2014.

¶11

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. No

¶12

costs.

¶13

November 24, 2014, (karan)

¶14

( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge.

Manmohan Kansal v. Hem Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan Kansal v. Hem Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Ram Vs State

Dina Nath Mahajan Vs State of Hp

Daulat Ram Vs State of Hp through District Collector, Solan

Ms Himachal Pradesh Electronics System Private Ltd. Vs Nemo

Indusree Power Private Ltd. Vs Andritz Hydro Power Private Ltd.

Ramesh Dutt Vs Subhash Chand