Dismissed

Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Surya Kant Saini & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2009CR/4551/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision challenging the Additional District Judge's order declining an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding the order was not perverse as it prevented re-opening of the case to create evidence regarding property conditions.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision was dismissed, upholding the order denying appointment of a Local Commissioner.

Kishan Lal & Ors. Vs Surya Kant Saini & Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 4551 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 12, 2009

¶3

Kishan Lal and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Surya Kant Saini and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate

¶10

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶11

Order passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari on 18.7.2009 while dismissing the application of the petitioners for appointment of Local Commissioner has been challenged by them by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

Ejectment petition filed by the respondents against Tej Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, from the demised property was accepted by learned Rent Controller, Rewari on October 31, 2008 and the petitioners were directed to hand over its vacant possession to the respondents. Aggrieved of the aforementioned order, the petitioners filed an appeal and, during its pendency, they

¶13

Civil Revision No. 4551 of 2009 -2-

¶14

submitted an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner so as to find out as to whether any person was residing above the demised property or not. It was pleaded that the facts were essential to know the existing condition of the demised property as the Rent Controller had ordered the ejectment on the ground that demised property had become unfit and unsafe.

¶15

While the matter was pending before the learned Rent Controller, both the parties had examined their respective experts regarding the condition of the demised property. The petitioners had examined DW4 Satpal, an Engineer by profession. After going through the testimonies of both the parties as well as their respective experts, learned Rent Controller had passed the order of ejectment.

¶16

The plea of the petitioners that the demised property was fit and safe for habitation/use on the ground as someone was living above it, was very well within their knowledge when the proceedings were pending before the learned Rent Controller. However, they did not produce the said evidence. When the petitioners had submitted an application before the learned Rent Controller for appointment of the Local Commissioner, the respondents submitted their reply stating therein that the petitioners had not mentioned the correct facts as according to them, the petitioners had got some repair work done during the pendency of the ejectment petition. Even an application

¶17

Civil Revision No. 4551 of 2009 -3-

¶18

was submitted by the respondents before the learned Rent Controller after the conclusion of the evidence which was allowed on 6.8.2008. In rebuttal thereto, the petitioners were given an opportunity to lead their evidence but they could not furnish any plausible explanation.

¶19

Learned lower appellate Court has rightly come to a conclusion that by moving an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner, the petitioners want to re-open the case and also to create the evidence, which cannot be permitted.

¶20

The impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari while declining the application of the petitioner for appointment of the Local Commissioner cannot be said to be either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity and, thus, calls for no interference.

¶21

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶22

August 12, 2009 satish

¶23

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Surya Kant Saini & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Surya Kant Saini & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sham Agencies General Merchants etc. Vs PNB etc.

Mangat Ram and Ors. Vs Sunder Devi and Ors.

Renuka Vs Aditya

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sarwan Singh and Ors.

Jagdish and Anr. Vs Tek Ram and Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Jaswanti