Allowed

Bhajan Lal @ Bhajna Ram v. Amarjit

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2024CR/166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of plaintiff's objections to a Local Commissioner's report under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The trial court had decided objections without reasons. The High Court set aside that order and directed the trial court to decide the objections afresh after cross-examination of the Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting objections to the Local Commissioner's report set aside; trial court to decide objections afresh, allowing cross-examination of the Local Commissioner if he opts to appear.

Bhajan Lal @ Bhajna Ram Vs Amarjit — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

[123] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

CR-166- 2 022 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 10.12.2024

¶3

Bhajan L a l @ Bhajna Ram …Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

Amarjit ….Respondent

¶6

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶7

Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent.

¶8

¶9

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶10

[1] Present revision petition is directed against order d a ted 24.11.20 2 1 passed by the learned Additi o nal Civil Judge (Senior Divisi o n), Balachau r , whereby, objections raised by the plaintiff to the report submi t ted by Local Commissioner appointed on h i s application by the learned T rial Court, ex e rcising the power under Order 2 6 Rule 9 CPC stands rejected.

¶11

[2] Notice of motion was iss u ed vide order dated 01.02.2 0 22. Despite s e rvice, respondent has opted not to appear.

¶12

[3] Counsel for the petitioner, w hile assailing the impugned o r der has draw n attention of this Court to or d er dated 06.01.2021 passed by the learned T rial Court, appointing the L o cal Commissioner whereby, the reference of the appointment as well as for submission of report w as specifically enlisted and was limited to t h ree points. He further submits t hat the repor t filed by Local Commissioner d a ted 27.05.2021 is beyond the

¶13

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.16 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CR-166- 2 022 (O&M) -2-

¶15

scope of r eference of appointment. The objections raised by the applic a ntpetitione r have been rejected, without a s signing any reason. It is only the conclusion that has been recorded b y the Court, holding that L o cal Commiss i oner apparently answered the queries put to him in order d a ted 06.01.20 2 1 strictly.

¶16

[4] In order to support his conte n tion, counsel for the petitioner has relied up o n the ratio of law laid down b y this Court in ‘ Roshan Lal ve r sus Jai Singh and others ’, reported as 2015 ( 4) R.C.R. (Civil) 1032. He rel y ing upon the aforesaid precedent submits th a t the report needs to be discar d ed and a fre s h Local Commissioner be appointed. [5] I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have carefully g o ne through t h e records of the case.

¶17

[6] Learned Trial Court vid e order dated 06.01.2021 w h ile appointin g Local Commissioner on the a pplication made by the petiti o ner observed as under:-

¶18

“ Therefore, to find out the exact position at the spo t application for appointment o f local commissioner is hereb y allowed. Accordingly, the co n cerned Kanugo of concerned sui t property is hereby appointed a s local commissioner to visit th e spot and furnish the report on f ollowing points:i) Whether there is new construction of wall at poin t C to D as per sit e plan of the applicant/plaintiff? ii) Whether the toil e t by the respondent is constructe d in the proper t y owned and possessed b y respondents?

¶19

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.16 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CR-166- 2 022 (O&M) -3-

¶21

iii) Whether there is existence of any legal passage i n portion in ABCD as per site plan placed on recor d by the applicant?

¶22

[7] The relevant extract of the report submitted by the Loca l Commiss i oner pursuant to the aforesaid o rder reads as under:-

¶23

“ Therefore, as per the revenue record and after spo t inspection, it was found that r e garding Point No.1, from Point C to Point D as shown in the enc l osed site plan, the Pakka wall ha s been constructed about 1 year ago and regarding Point No.2, Amarjit Singh is the owner of t h e toilet and bathroom constructe d at the spot. Regarding Point N o .3, Point A,B,C,D has been show n as Kacha Rasta in the enclose d site plan, but this rasta is not i n existence at the spot and nor is there any rasta on this land in th e revenue record. Bhajan Lal @ Bhajna Ram is in possession ove r the backside of the house o f Amarjit Singh in which on th e western side, there are his d e molished rooms and foundation s have been filled of one room. O n the northern side, boundary o f this plot, a gate is installed towards eastern side. There is a pakka rasta adjacent to this no r thern boundary.”

¶24

[8] The objections raised by the a pplicant-petitioner to the repor t

¶25

reproduc e d in the impugned order read as under:-

¶26

“1) That the Local Com m issioner has not demarcated the property in question an d local commissioner has made ou t his own case while bye p a ssing the directions of this Hon'ble Court and Financial C o mmissioner Punjab. The report o f LC is beyond reference.

¶27

ii) That the Local Commissioner has wrongly sided the defendant which is very m uch clear from his report itself. T he

¶28

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.16 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CR-166- 2 022 (O&M)

¶30

-4-

¶31

report of Local Commis s ioner is silent about the natural f low of the water which is the main issue in the present c a se. Moreover Local Com m issioner has surprisingly mentioned the over age of the wall in question, with malafide intentio n to support the defendant t o the reasons best known to the l o cal commissioner. Thus the r eport of local commissioner is wrong and false. Actually the r e exist passage at the spot and the local commissioner ha s tried to help the defendant w h ile submitting his wrong re p ort.

¶32

iii) That the Local Co m missioner has not effected the measurement nor taken into consideration the natural flo w of the water.

¶33

(iv) That the LC has visite d the spot at the back of the obje c tor and the LC has tried h is best to give undue benefit to the defendant.

¶34

v) That the report cated 2 7 .05.2021 is an eye wash and has b een manipulated by the L o cal Commissiosser with an obl i que motive to benefit the de f endant and to cause loss and damage to the objector/plainitff.

¶35

vi) That in case the report d ated 27.05.2021 which is incomplete and wrong is admitte d in that event it will give ris e to multiplicity of litigatio n and unexpected disputes interse the parties and the object o r shall suffer an irreparable l o ss, injury and inconvenienc e .

¶36

vii) That the report of local commissioner is biased, manipulated, false and baseless and carries no value in the eyes of l aw. Thus the report of LC m a y be set aside. ”

¶37

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.16 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CR-166- 2 022 (O&M) -5-

¶39

[9] From the perusal of the im p ugned order, it is evident that the learned T rial Court has not considered e v en single objection and has fa i led to opine as to whether Local Com m issioner while submitting report, travelled beyond reference of appoint m ent or not? Local Commissi o ner surprisin g ly adjudicated upon ownershi p rather than reporting the stat e of affairs.

¶40

[10] In the considered opinion o f this Court, the impugned o r der cannot s u stain. However, since the rep o rt has to be proved by exami n ing Local Co m missioner, who is yet to app e ar in the witness box, it will b e in the interest of justice that the learned T r ial Court decides objections ra i sed by the p l aintiff-applicant to the report filed by the Local Commissi o ner afresh. It will be better if the obje c tions are decided after affor d ing opportun i ty to cross-examine the Local Commissioner in case, L o cal Commiss i oner opts to appear. In case , Local Commissioner opts no t to appear, t h e objections on Local Commissioner report raised by the petiti o ner shall be d ecided prior to having final arg u ments.

¶41

[11] With the aforesaid observati o ns, the impugned order is ord e red to be set a side and the present revision petition is allowed .

¶42

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶43

10.12.20 2 4

¶44

‘R. Sharma'

¶45

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶46

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.16 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bhajan Lal @ Bhajna Ram v. Amarjit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhajan Lal @ Bhajna Ram v. Amarjit

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

Buta Singh & Anr. Vs Bahadur Singh & Anr.

Amar Kaur Vs Baldev Singh

Raj Garg Vs Gian Singh and Ors.

Ranbir Singh @ Ranbir Singh Chauhan Vs Mehar Chand

Jaswant Singh Vs Harjeet Singh

(O&M) M/S Punjab Plastic Industries Vs Recovery Officer Esi Corpn.Etc