L1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. ^ Lf OF 2010 (S.B ) PETITIONER PLAINTIFF ^•^ . .»/-:,sv^^ ^^^^f^^ '^--^"^ -3 ^ Jagdish Prasad Verma, aged about 63 years S/o Shri Faguaram Verma (Patanwar), R/o Village Kukda, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur and near Mata Chowra, Shivghat Gali, Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT DEFENDANT Shri Santosh Patanwar, aged about 45 years S/o Shri Mukhram Patanwar, R/o Village Kukda, . Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur - (C.G.). / ^Ss^^^y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^S^^s^^ €>"":^' ^ Q^ HJGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mlshra Petitioner Respondent Writ Petition (227) No.54 of 2010 Jagdish Prasad Verma versys Shri Santosh Patanwar Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8m January, 2010) Heard learned counsel forthe petitioner on admission. 2. In a suit for permanent injunction the petitipner/plaintiff moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Clvil Procedure for issuance of commission for local investigation and demarcation of the disputed land on the plea that the //s between the parties can be adjudicated only by ordering for local investigation and demarcation because the dispute is about identity of the land. The learned trial Court has rejected the apptication vide jmpugned order dated 11-12- 2009 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the process of the Court cannot be permitted to collect evidence for pne orthe other party and that the plaintiff can himself get it demarcated and that the burden to prove encroachment and illegal construction on the plaintiff's land lies upon him. -^.- 3. The reason assigned by the learned trial Court for refysing to grant plaintiffs application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be perverse or has been so made by misreading ofthe facts and circumstances ofthe case. therefore, there being no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, the instant writ petition fajls and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal