W1 Kal'fl a m? é FE . i ghi a r’ _m A. F rat h a( 1?r g“ i $ 122 1’ ( l-. n‘ iii . : ":i J; L E{ ,mf m ff" I‘mmJ . 1: r’ . u m _, 1 nah: $ My W1 , hm, ly “ W 27 E3 ' 3 q m' un] \ , y 1 WI! mg“ h Ji » isga m ._n-_-_-. i _-; ' {Li ' '- - mania—- x 1; E :_ v .g q $ wt. : , W l [Mu WI m : F“ :1 :;1 % m“ m M ©© HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wlit Petition 1C! N0. 1776 of 2007 PETITIONERS 1 Smt. Manti & another Defendants VERSUS RESPONDENTS t Omkar Nath Singh & another Piaintiffs WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shn' Vishnu Kosta, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondents though served. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 04.02.2011) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 31,012007, passed by the Civil Judge Class H, Manendragarh, in Civil Suit No, 2-A/05. 2. Brief facts as projected by the petitioners are that : The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit land i.e. 650 Sq.f. out of Khasra No. 305/1 Area 1.719 Hect. on the ground that defendants/petitioners are constructing house over the suit land. The demarcation report was tiled by the plaintiffs. The defendants filed revenue map on 06.03 .2006. Therespondmts nled an application under ()nler26 Rule9 ofCPC mmegrotmdthattherearenNodemarcatimrepmtsonmerecord onehledbythe defendmnsandanomerbyplahrdhsandbommecmnadictorytoeachothd, and theefore, it is necessary to appoint Commissioner for fresh \ q/ OQ demarcation of the above land. The application was opposed by the petitioner herein. 3. The trial court vide order impugned allowed the respondents application. Hence this petition. 4. Shri Vishnu Kosta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the trial court has illegally allowed the plaintiffs q application for demarcation of the suit land by appointing Commissioner and the same deserves to be quashed. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned. Shri Koshta did not dispute the fact that there are two demarcation reports; one filed by the plaintiffs and another by defendants and both reports are contradictory to each other. In View of above, it was necessary to obtain fresh demarcation report inasmuch as the dispute relating to identity of the property can only be resolved by getting 1 ~: p the suit land demarcated. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sdl- ‘ N.K. Agarwal Judge i 7..