IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3-!/^5€ /2007 PETITIONER \^./ ,^<,);/ ^^.- 6»' ,1»' ...t' Sanat Kumar, Son of Bhukhe Lal Rathore, aged about 45 years, resident of Village Jhafal,' Tahasil Lormi, District Bilaspiu- (C.G.). sff .*'&" VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Bare Lal, Son of Nathu Ram, aged about 65 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jhafal, Tahasil Lormi, District Bilaspzir (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, BUaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTJCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS ETC. H HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETIT'ON IC} N0.345S of 2007 Petjtioner Sanat Kumar, Son of Bhukhe La! Rathore, aged about 45 years, resident of Village Jhafal, Tahasil Lormi, District Biiaspur (C.G.) Respondents Versus 1. 2 Bare Lai, Son of Nathu Ram, aged about 65 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jhafal, Tahasil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^- WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present^- Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha , Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (Passed on this 22nd day of June,2007) 1. By this petition, flled under Article227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner chaiienges the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") for appointment of the Commissioner was rejected. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction on 6.2.1995 before the Civii Judge Ciass-l, Mungeli against the. respondent No. 1 restraining him from constructing the school building over the suit land. In the pending 'suit, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Tahsildar, Lormi as Commissioner to investigate the suit land and submit a report. The Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his 2 report on 17.4.2003. The petitioner filed the objectionto the said report on 7.5.2003 (Annexure P/6). After having considered the report submitted by the Commissioner and objection of the petitioner, the Civil Judge Class-1, Mungeli, District Bitaspur, dismissed the suit by the judgment and order dated 7.12.2003 (Annexure P/7). 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfled witti ttie order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 96, Order 41, Rule 1 of the CPC before the Additional District Judge, Mungeli. In the pending appeal, the petitioner again filed an appiication under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC for appointing Commissioner to examine the status of the land and submit a report. The respondent No. 2 filed the objection to the said application. 4. The Additional District Judge, Mungeli, after having examined all the facts, came to the conclusion that the Commissioner has already been appointed during pendency of the suit and the suit has been dismissed after having considered all the facts including report of the Commissioner. The petitioner has not made out a case for appointing a Commissioner second time at appellate stage. Thus, the Additional District Judge, Mungeli dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P/11). 5. By this petition, the petitioner has not questioned the procedural error, infirmity or iltegality in rejecting theapplication, except that the report submitted by eariier Commissioner does not indicate map and panchanama properly. 6. On perusal of the pleadings, judgments and documents appended thereto, 1 am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeii is unexceptionabie and does not warrant any interference. ^ 3 B/- ^ 8. it is weft settted principle of law that under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction ofjudicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law or there is grave failur®of justice or grave injustice hasoccasioned thereby. Further, this Court can aiso entertain the petition in its supervisory jurisdiction if there is perversity, irregularity or iliegafity in the process of decision, not in the decision itself. As a result and for the reasons aforestated, this petition is dismissed, summarily. I. .---.,.. SdA: - i Satish KAgnihotri 1 - Judge -• , ' -< ¥- •^'