Dismissed

Gopi Meena Son of Shri Mangya v. Parbhati Wife of Mishra

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2020CW/9521/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging a Gram Nyayalaya judgment. The petitioner defendants sought the re-appointment of a Site Commissioner due to alleged wrong measurements and lack of notice. The High Court held no notice was required for a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor and dismissed the petition under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the impugned order dated 25.3.2019 and the finding regarding the Site Commissioner report intact.

Gopi Meena Son of Shri Mangya Vs Parbhati Wife of Mishra — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9521/2019

¶3

Gopi Meena Son Of Shri Mangya, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Meena, Resident Of Village Chainpur Bardia, Tehsil And District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Parbhati Wife Of Mishra, By Caste Bairwa, Resident Of Village Khedli, Tehsil Wajirpur, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶7

Khema Mali Son Of Shri Ram Prasad Mali, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Village Khanpur Baroda, Near Gangaji Kothi, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶8

Ramesh Bariwa Son Of Hatila Bairwa, By Caste Baira, Resident Of Village Gerai, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. D.K. Dixit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr Anil Kumar Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶12

Order

¶13

03/01/2020

¶14

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.3.2019 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No. 27/2019, whereby the objection raised by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) in regard to the report of Site Commissioner and praying for reappointment of the Site Commissioner has been dismissed.

¶15

Facts of the case are that the respondent no.1-plaintiff (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with regard to two plot nos. 61 and 62

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-9521/2019]

¶18

admeasuring 60 Ft. X 45 Ft., total 2700 fit. situated in Govind Bihar Colony, Ganga Ji Ki Kothi, Karauli Road, Gangapur City.

¶19

During the pendency of the suit, the Trial Court vide order dated 28.5.2018 appointed the Site Commissioner, who visited the site and prepared the report and site plan, according to which each plot was admeasuring 30 Ft. X 45 Ft. (total 60 Ft. X 45 Ft.).

¶20

The defendant filed the objection in regard to the report of Site Commissioner stating that he did not receive any notice from the Court nor any information was given by the Site Commissioner, despite that the Site Commissioner in his report mentioned that the defendants were not present on the site at the time of inspection. It was also stated that wrong measurement of the property in question was mentioned by the Site Commissioner. Thus, the defendant prayed to re-appoint the Site Commissioner.

¶21

The Trial Court vide its order dated 25.3.2019 rejected the defendant’s objections and the prayer to re-appoint the Site Commissioner. Hence the present writ petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that measurement of the land in question, its plinth and boundaries were wrongly mentioned by the Site Commissioner in its report, therefore, Site Commissioner was required to be be re-appointed. The learned Trial Court has utterly failed to consider the same, hence, the impugned order dated 25.3.2019 be quashed and setaside and the Site Commissioner be re-appointed.

¶23

Heard. Considered.

¶24

It is admitted fact that the order dated 28.5.2018 appointing the Site Commissioner was passed in presence of learned counsel for both the parties. In this view of the matter, no

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-9521/2019]

¶27

separate notice or information was required to be given to the defendant with regard to site inspection by the Trial Court or by the Site Commissioner. So far as the measurement of the property in question was concerned, there was no dispute between the parties in regard thereto as the suit was filed for permanent injunction simplicitor. Furthermore, it is well settled that for the purpose of collecting evidence, Commissioner cannot be appointed. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court rightly rejected the defendant’s objection and the prayer to re-appoint the Site Commissioner.

¶28

There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

The petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶30

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶31

DILIP KHANDELWAL /35

Gopi Meena Son of Shri Mangya v. Parbhati Wife of Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Meena Son of Shri Mangya v. Parbhati Wife of Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nem Prakash Khandaka HUF Vs Somani Trading Comp Andanr

The Tarikki Tibbi Society Vs Dr Parvej Akhtar Varsi and Anr.

Chagan Lal Vs Mandir Shree Laxmi Narain Ji Andors

Hari Singh Vs Smt Sumitra Devi

Smt Dropadi Devi Vs Smt Vandana Meena

Surendradas Swami S/O Narayan Das, Vs Dr Praveen S/O Late Shri Gopal Singh