^^.^ ^ /- • /o IN THE HlGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BlLASPUR WP (227)-. / 2010 Petitioner / Plaintiff Smt. Jhansirani Barik, 47 Yrs., w/o B. Barik, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur - thro' Attorney B.R. Barik S/o Ratanlal Barik New Subhash Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur Versus / 1. Ravi Gilhare, Sarpanch, Vill. Dhusera, Teh. Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur -'2. Pramod Shukla, 40 Yrs. ^3. Smt. Aarti Shukla, 35 Yrs., w/o Pramod Shukla 2 &3 J^/o - Shiv Sadan, Near Nilayana Tiraha, Bandhwapara, Raipur Petition Under Art. 227 ofthe Constitution of India Respondents / Defendants ^^:^c HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mlshra Writ Petition (2271 No. 7194/2010 Smt. Jhansirani Barik Versus PETmONER RESR3NDENTS Ravi Gilhare and others. Shri Raja Sharma, counsel fw ttie petitioner. WRST PETSTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTSTUTION OF MDJA ORALORDER (13.12.2010) Learned counset for Ihe petitioner would sutonit ttiat the teamed trial Court shoutd have allowed Ihe pSaintfff's prayer for issuance of commission for iocaS inspectbn because apparentiy ttiere is a ciispule regardlng iden^ty and demarcation of tand. He would further submst that the said demarcation is the best plece of evklenee for pr^per adjudication of the dlspute arKl therefore the Court should have granted frie application. (2) Learned triat Court has rejected the appdcation under Order 26 Rute 9 of C.P.C. in spite of there being imptied concession to the grant of sakl appticatten by the defendant $n the suft, on the ground that the suft is fixed for recofding of evidence, therefore, before the parties have lect their evtdence, such pra^r for issuance of commisslon for locat inspection at the initial stege should not be atlowed. (3) The reasoning assigned by ttie trial Court for rej^fing the ap^ication does not appear to be unreasonable or improper so as to warrant exerclse of power uncter Articte 227 of the Constitution of tndia, however after recoreling of the statements of plalntifTs wftnesses, if the plalntiff feets that the issue r^arding the constructton, as to v^iettier it is made on Khasra No. IL,,.^ V^^- /r/s^ 1 'i 247/3 or on Khasra No. 248/1, has not been proved suffidently, he shatl be at tiberty to move the apptication under Order 26 Rute 9 of C.P.C. afresh and in such eventuality ttie leamed trial Court shall d<^(de the appriteafion on (ts own merit wfthout being (nfiuence by tt^ impygned order or the order passed mthiswritpetition. (4) The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge )^