i ,_ é ‘ , sRETWEEN . ‘ !_ K § i - Vl.% .Si’§a§ Go;ehazar,}> g § Brljmohan ram Dua, Bilaspur, Dua,‘ r/o aged Gondpara, Tehsil‘ about 50 Post & years, Dlstrlct:_ offlc ¢ __ ‘ ‘ _ ,l, , ’ B la§pur(c G ) 'sV 2; years, ~g Smt. w/o Chandrakall Prakash, r/o ‘Bai, Jahrabhata, aged aboutwu45j Tehsil &” Dlgtrlct Bllaspur(c G ) " ’« g‘ % ’ ‘ g PETI'TIoNERf-V‘ - , i _ n‘ I Indlan Church Counc1l of the Discipla of? ‘ ‘hrough ' 1ts Exec ' Jahrabh riClvll 8 I ’and for damages 1n the year 19 ; The sult ls stlll endmg and the saldl ’ ‘ suxt ls$f1xed for emdence and at thls stage pet1t rs herem moved an applicagnorlt under Order 26 Rule 9 read Wlth Sectlon 151 of the C P C for Whlch was reJected by the leamed C1v11 Judge Vlde / V I have heard learned coun e1 for the petltlo on adrmss1on Learned counsel for the “et1t10ner submLts that the respondent hereln f1led a sult 1n the year 1 84 1n Whlch the respondent hereln had not ment1oned Khasra number o the dtsputed land whereas 1n the year 2003 respondent herem moved an apphcatlon for amendment of the plamt and sought amendment regardmg mentlonmg of the Khasra number of the dlsputed land thelr amendment was allowed He \ further' submltted. that 1n v1 , necessaxy ‘that Commissioner of the amendntent 1t has become appomted 1n order to f1nd out and ascertaln whether the Khasra n mbe1 of the dlsputed land 1s 85/ l or ' not. Shm S S9nl; coun< e1 for he pet1t1onrs t e {The petluoners have preferred th1s wr1t petltlon under Art1ole 227 of the Constltutlon of lnd1a, bemg aggrleved by the order dated 01/03/2004 passed by 3r& C1V1 Judge Class I Bllaspur, whereby the learned Cml Judge reJeoted th‘ apphcatlon of the petltxoners herem ‘ P C for appomtment of Cormmssmnef Bllaspur for s1te 1nspect1on and ' l . M , ‘ - demarcauon of the land bearmg azul plot no 65] 1 85 85/ l é - Brlef facts leadmg to fllng of thls Wmt pet1t1on are that the respondent herem flled a sult Annexure 13/4) against the peutloner herem for possessmn of Plot No 5/ 1 Sheet No 4 and also for Injunotlon . flied under Order 26 Rule 9 of ire, Revenue Inspector Naz 1 ; $ ‘ e ( " r 1 n v d e ‘ f’ u , V > ’ Lhave perused the 1mpugn d order L%eamed C1V11 Judge Whxl‘ rejectmg the apphcahon flled by th , petltxoners harem, observed that the d1spute regardlng Khasra numbe was to be dec1ded based on the e r cuments and ewdence adduced by the , partles ilf the plamtlff falls to pr Ve hls case by adducmg ewdence then hls su1t W111 be dlsmlssed 1s not necessary to appomt the ’ Commls‘smner 1n order to f1nd ou the real s1tuatlon of the dlsputed land ’In thls connectlon relevant pro s10ns of Order 26 Rule 9 of the C P C In any sult 1n Wh1ch th Court deems a lo nvest1gat1on to be requ131te or proper for the purpo e of e1uc1dat1ng any matter 1n dlspute then thd Court may 1ssue a c sslon to such person as 1t thmks flt’ dlrec/tmg h1m to make such 1nv stlgatlon and to report thereon to the Court” 3 ,i i _‘ " I ‘ r . 7 , In‘ this case the learned C V11 Judge has recorded that the sult 1s pendmg Slnhe 1984 and 1n order to ascertaln the ra number of the: dlsputed land the plamtxff 1s re ulred to prove se if he fails to prove his case by adducmg the e ‘dence, then h1s 111 be d1sm1ssed For that purpose appomtment o Comm1ssloner 1s not necessary Th Court after recordmg the re sons reached the conclusion that appolntment of the Comrmssmn r ls not necessary and the part1es by adducmg thexr ev1dence can pr ve the actual Khasra number of) the d1sputed land Under Art1cle 227 of the C nstltutlon of Ind1a, 1t 1s settled law that whlle exermsmg Junsd1ct10n of certloran, athls Court cannot Slt as a Appellate Court and Junsdlctlon an be exerc1sed 1n an approprlate case : only when the Court reaches to onclus1on that the subordmate Court V has assumed a Jurlsdlctlon Whrh 1t does not have or has falled to 7‘! V (amax r “ c ‘ f1 V ‘ ’ ' o l r " l“ s h a ll W e g’ I f ‘ VA ‘ ” “ ‘ wmiffgvjm #Wm avallable ls belng’ exerc1scd by the Cdurt in a manner not permitted by law and fallure of justice or grave injustice has occasicned thereby, and / the supemsory Jurlsdlctlon 1s not available to correct mere facts of law x; unless the error 1s mamfest and apparent on the face of the proceedings i fix l‘ ' such as when 1t 1s based on clear 1gnoranoe or utter dlsregard of the § _ prowsmns of law or a grave 1 Justtce or gross fallure of Justlce has if y} occ§as1cfmed thereby and error 1s atent whlch 1s self-ewdent ’F‘é ‘ § :None of the above conduonSware satlsfledun this matter The : learned Civil Judge after considt ring the arguments of both the part1e§ i reached the conclusion that app Dintment of Revenue Inspector (Nazul) is ‘ i notineriessary to inspect the site i ' g Therefore, I do not find any substance in this petition, same is ‘ r ‘ liable to be dismissed and iLis at-cordingly dismissed. > :’ g ; ‘ ‘ 4 é In wew of this order, M.W.P. No.1sa2/2004 and LA. i No 4913/2004 stand dlsposed oi. ' x’”! . \“s, N a » _-—/f ‘ ‘N Nnw l 3x$éju i i; ' E y ‘ r ' \ l~ \ a ' ‘ a t L.c.BHADoo Judge sw— ‘ [tiiaw