by the learned court below in the impugned order dated 12.05.2010. Moreover, there is a dispute as to whether the land in question is 03 dhur or 08 dhur , inasmuch as it has been stated by the defendants-respondents that the plaintiff-petitioner has purchased only 03 dhur land. This Court further finds that since there is a dispute with regard to the right/ title of the plaintiffpetitioner in respect of the suit land and the learned court below is yet to adjudicate as to whether the plaintiff-petitioner has right/ title over 03 dhur land or 08 dhur land of the suit land or over none, coupled with the fact that the claim of the plaintiffpetitioner in the petition dated 29.04.2010 is inconsistent with his pleadings in the plaint as also is inconsistent with the report submitted by the Advocate-Commissioner dated 03.04.2007, which has not ever been challenged by the petitioner herein, I find that it would not be appropriate to make any declaration which would prejudice rights of the respective parties. Moreover, this Court finds that the Advocate-Commissioner, in his report dated 03.04.2007 has not stated about any structure of the residential house of the plaintiff-petitioner being in a dilapidated condition or requiring repair and since the said report has not been challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner, I do not find that the petitioner has made out any case so as to
