PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.6360 of 2010 Gyanchand Tatiya, son of Shri Thakur Lal Tatiya, aged about 47 years, resident of Dumar Talab, Raipur, Ward No.14, (Ishwaricharan Shukla Ward), Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) ^ RESPONDENT/: (Defendant) Versus Subodh Singhaniya, son of Shri Shyamlal Singhania, aged about 42 years, Singhania Buildcon, Aamanaka, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) {Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Sameer Oraon, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Verma, counsel for the respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (13-7-2011) 1. By this writ petitipn under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality & propriety ofthe order dated 10-8-2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge, Raipyr to the 1st Civil Judge Class-ll in Civil Suit No.179- A/2010, whereby learned 2nd Additional Judge has dismissed the application for local inspection filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel forthe parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint, copy of the written statement, copy of the sale deed and other documents. 3. As per case of the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant has tried to dispossess the petitioner/plaintiff from his possession over Khasra No. 147/3, area 1500 sq.ft. on 20-2-2010. By filing written statement, the defendant has denied such allegation, he has specifically pleaded that he is not having any land near the alleged land of the plaintiff and he has not tried ito dispossess the plaintiff from his possession. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed application for local inspection i.e. demarcation. PIeadings of the parties clearly reveal that there is no case of dispute relating to possession. The defendant is not having any land adjoining to the land of the plaintiff, even the plaintiff has not filed any document to show ownership or possessionof the defendant adjoining to the plaintiff's land. This is merely a case of dispossession without any propriety for which local inspection by appointing ^s Soma Commissioner is not necessary. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application for local inspection and while dismissing the said application the Court below has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise ofsupervisory jurisdiction. 4. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge