Rajesh Gupta v. Smt. Mamta Gupta

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. 864 of 2018 Rajesh Gupta, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Ramesh Lal Gupta, R/o Sharda Vihar, Opp. Tejsingh Motor Driving School, Chantidih Road, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner / Defendant No. 1

Versus

1. Smt. Mamta Gupta, aged about 47 years, W/o Bhagwan Prasad Gupta, through power of Attorney holder Bhagwan Prasad Gupta, aged about 59 years, S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, R/o Hotel Shivalaya, Plot No. 91-92, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nagar, Jamnipali, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.)..............[Plaintiff]

2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.).......... [Defendant No. 2] ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 :

Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06/10/18 1.

By the impugned order dated 13.09.2018, the application filed by plaintiff / respondent No. 1 herein under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been allowed by the trial Court directing appointment of revenue commissioner for demarcation of suit land against which this writ petition has been preferred. 2.

Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that trial Court is absolutely unjustified in granting the said application directing appointment of local commissioner for demarcation of the suit land.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order with utmost circumspection.

4.

The trial Court has clearly recorded a finding that dispute between the parties is of encroachment / demarcation of the suit land which can be

resolved by appointment of local commissioner and proceeded to appoint the local commissioner. It is a case of the plaintiff that defendant has encroached upon the suit land whereas it is the case of defendant that they have not encroached upon the suit land and in that case the appointment of revenue commissioner becomes necessary. Therefore, the trial Court is absolutely justified in granting the application of the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC and as such, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, if the report is filed, the petitioner is at liberty to examine and cross-examine the revenue commissioner appointed by the Court. 5.

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka