Court dismisses writ petition challenging the trial court's decision to appoint a commissioner for inspecting disputed property in Udaipur.
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect a disputed property in Udaipur. The petitioner, Roshan Lal, contested the trial court's order which allowed the commissioner to assess the physical condition and demarcation of the property in question.
The dispute arose when Roshan Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction concerning an abadi plot in Village Sisarma, claiming possession based on a patta issued in 1975. He alleged encroachment by the respondent, Veni Ram, and sought temporary injunction. The trial court granted interim protection but later approved the respondent's request to appoint a commissioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), to document the property's current state.
Roshan Lal's counsel argued that the trial court overstepped its bounds by using the commission to gather evidence, which should be established independently during the trial. However, the counsel for Veni Ram maintained that the commission's role was merely to assist the court in understanding the property's condition for a fair decision on the interlocutory application.
Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over the case, emphasized that the commission's purpose was not to resolve the parties' substantive rights but to provide an objective assessment of the property's condition. The court concluded that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the commissioner's appointment as a tool to aid effective adjudication.
The decision reiterates the court's stance on using commissions to clarify factual disputes at the interlocutory stage without impinging on the parties' rights to present evidence during the trial.
Bottom line:-
Appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC is permissible to ascertain the existing physical features, measurements, and boundaries of the disputed property, even at the interlocutory stage, to assist the Court in effective adjudication.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX Rule 7, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Roshan Lal v. Veni Ram, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2941911
