Revision petition challenging dismissal of objection to demarcation report in suit for possession. Court held plaintiff must prove case for possession and cross-examine commissioner at final stage. No ground for interference found. Dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed as no ground for interference is made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R. No.4485 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4485 of 2016
Date of Decision.11.08.2016
Sushil Kumar
.......Petitioner
Vs.
Shri Ved Parkash ........Respondent
Present: Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby objection to the demarcation report done by the local commissioner at the instance of defendant, has been dismissed.
Mr. V.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the suit is for possession of the property based upon the demarcation which has not been assailed so far. The suit is at initial stage and the objection ought to have been permitted.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. The plaintiff has to stand on his legs and prove the case for the purpose of claiming possession. Equally so the defendant would also discharge the burden. Both the parties are relying upon the demarcation reports and the same can be looked into in case they are proved in accordance with law and demarcations have been done in pursuance of High Court Rules and Regulations. It would be a question of debate and arguments at the final stage, much less, the plaintiff would have a right to cross-examine the person who had demarcated the property at the instance PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.08.22 12:14 of the defendant. This view of mine regarding filing of the objection is I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R. No.4485 of 2016 -2-
already laid in Balbir Dewan Vs. Naveen Chander AIR 1989 P&H 257 .
For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order passed by the Court below, much less, the order cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction. No ground for interference is made out. The revision petition is dismissed.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
||
|---|---|---|
| August 11, 2016 | ||
| Pankaj* | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned | Yes | |
| Whether reportable | No |
PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.08.22 12:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an objection to the demarcation report filed at the initial stage of a suit for possession can be permitted.
Whether the lower court committed illegality or perversity in dismissing the objection to the demarcation report without jurisdiction.
Whether grounds exist for interference with the impugned order dismissing the objection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balbir Dewan Vs. Naveen ChanderRelied on¶18
Balbir Dewan Vs. Naveen Chander AIR 1989 P&H 257 · Who else cites this
Sushil Kumar
Shri Ved Parkash
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
