Dismissed

Nitin Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Harsh Kumar Arora

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2012CR/1303/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the challenge to an appellate court order rejecting a Local Commissioner's report and appointing a fresh one. The court held the impugned order was legal as the original report was not prepared in accordance with the appointment order.

What did the court decide?

C.M. No. 7100 CII of 2012 is allowed; Annexures P-5 and P-6 are taken on record. Civil Revision is dismissed.

Nitin Kumar Jain and Anr. Vs Harsh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1303 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.M.No.7100 CII of 2012 and Civil Revision No.1303 of 2012 Date of decision 19.03.2012.

¶5

Nitin Kumar Jain and another

¶6

...... Petitioners.

¶7

versus

¶8

Harsh Kumar Arora

¶9

.. .... Respondent.

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

K.C.PURI. J.

¶16

C.M.No.7100 CII of 2012

¶17

C.M. stands allowed. Annexure P-5 and P-6 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

MAIN CASE .

¶19

Challenge in this revision is the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by Shri Naresh Katyal, Additional District Judge, Panipat vide which the application dated 3.11.2011 filed by plaintiff-respondent Harsh Kumar

¶20

Civil Revision No.1303 of 2012

¶21

¶22

under order 26 Rule 10(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC) for rejecting the report of the Local Commissioner and for appointment of fresh Local Commissioner.

¶23

Briefly stated the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court filed an objection petition to the report of the Local Commissioner. The main ground of challenge of said report is that the Local Commissioner has prepared the demarcation report on the site plan furnished by the present petitioners. The directions were issued by the Court vide order dated 4.12.2010. That Tehsildar-Panipat (Local Commissioner) shall take the assistance of Kanungo, Patwari, Junior Engineer-HUDA Panipat to prepare the report. The Appellate Court, observed that in compliance to the direction of order dated 4.12.2010, the site/lay out plan dated 31.3.2011 has been provided to Tehsildar/Local Commissioner by the present petitioners, so by invoking the provisions of order 26 Rule 10 (3) CPC, the Appellate Court directed the Tehsildar to make demarcation in compliance to the order dated 4.12.2010. It has also been observed by the trial Court that previous report is not waste in view of various authorities. The revisionist has challenged the said order.

¶24

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in view of authority Ram Murti Goyal Advocate and others vs. Smt. Basant Kaur and others reported in 1991 (2) R.R.R. page 142 when there are serious objections to the report of Local Commissioner and the Local Commissioner is not examined, in that case, the case has to be remanded for appointment of the fresh local commissioner. It is further submitted

¶25

Civil Revision No.1303 of 2012

¶26

¶27

that since Local commissioner has not been examined and as such report is not admissible in evidence. It is further contended that in the said authority it has been further held that parties are entitled to file objection to the report of Local Commissioner and they should be given opportunity to substantiate their objections by way of evidence.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the authority cited by him.

¶29

The authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioners rather helps the case of the respondents. It has been held in the said case that if there are serious objections to the report of Local Commissioner in that case new Local Commissioner can be appointed. In the present case, as per observations made by the Appellate Court, the Local Commissioner has not prepared the report in consonance with the order of his appointment. So, in these circumstances, the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid. The other observations made in the authority that the objection to the report of Local Commissioner can be filed is not relevant at this stage, as after receiving the report of Local Commissioner the petitioner may proceed in accordance with law. So, I see no reasoning to interfere in the impugned order.

¶30

6. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶31

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict

¶32

compliance.

¶33

March 19 , 2012 sv

Nitin Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Harsh Kumar Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Harsh Kumar Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagroop Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Balraj Singh Vs Kamaljeet Kaur and Ors.

Amrik Singh and Anr. Vs Nazar Singh

Labh Kaur etc. Vs Dilbag Singh etc.

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Ram Diti and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Niharika & Anr.