HIGH €GURT $F CHHATTISGARH i BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiON N0. Q32 SF 2mm ?ETETIONER Smi. Jugga Devi, W/e Ranulal Saklecha, aged about-67 years, Resident of Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, Tahsi! and Distrint Bhamtari (CG). Versus 1. Ravindra Kumar Manda, aged about 57 years, S/‘c Late Nemnath Nanda, Occupatian Truck Owner, resident of Behind Bombay Garrage, Jadhapur Ward, Dhammri, Tahsi; and Distric: Dhamtari. 2. Mchc‘. Farukh. aged abaut 35 years, S/o Mohd. Gulam, Occupation L Motor Mechanic. Resident of Near Badi Masjid, Sadar Bazar, Dhamiari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (CG). The Siate of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Dhamtari. Tahsii and Dietrict Dhamtari (CG). (Writ petitioii under Articie 226/227 of the Censtituticn of indie) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Pieeent :- Shri 5.0. Guru, counsel for the petitioner. Shri HB. Agrawai, Sr. Adveeate with Shri CR, Sahu, Advoeate for the respondent No.1. RE$PGNBENT3 (t:a Shri Bhaekar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. GML ORDER {Passed on this 2e!" day of January, 200g) With the coasem ef learned eounsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2‘) The eetitioner/defendant No.1 impugns the order dated 23-2—2001 {AnnexureaPm whereby the trial Court has atloweel the application of the reseondent No.1l’plaintiff for appointment of Commissioner to inspect and demarcate the disputed tand bearing khaera No.816. 3) Learned eouneel appearing for the petitioner submite that the issue has aiready been settied when the matter was pending before the executing Court in respeet of the same khaera. The executing Court did as: not appoint the Commissioner for spot inspection, whioh was challenged \\ before the High Court of Madnya Pradesh at Jabaipur in Civii Revision No.442 §f 1994. The H§gh Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the rev§sion upheiding the order of the executmg Court on the ground that the execution pmceedings can identify the portion, which was under execution without any fresh demarcation by the Commissioner. Thus, appointment of Commissioner subsequently in a civii proceeding is barred. 4) Be that as it may, the law on appointment of Commissioner is ciear that if the Commissioner is appointed for demarcation of the disputed land, it was appropriate for the Court to direot the investigation by appointing a ‘Locai Commissioner under Crder 26 Ruie 9 of the Code of Civii Procedure. \‘1908 (See Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and others‘). since the Commissioner was appointed for demarcation of the land, there is no infirmity or iliegality in the impugned order. Thus, the reliance of the ‘petitioner on the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in civil K revision No. 442 of t994 is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case, a case was pending before the executing Court not before the civil Court. The order impugned is unexceptionable, just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 5} This Court in exercise of its supervisowjurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia shouid refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, iliegaiity, irreguiarity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6 in View of the foregoing, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingiy dismissed. 7) Consequently, interim order passed earlier stands discharged and ail the pending applications stand disposed of. \ ‘4; own Sd/- sau'sh K. Agnihom ‘ l Judge \ Gowri i, (zoos) s soc art ) l