’ ’‘ BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( 227') NO. 2K§\ / 2011 PETITIONERS: / 1 . Trilokchand Chimna'ni LAINTIFFS Aged about 66 years S/o —vLate Shrl Narumal Chlmnam An11 Kumar Chlmnanl Aged about 42 years S/o 7 Shrl Trllokchand Chimnani, Deepak Kumar Chimnani, Aged about — 39 years, S/o — Shri Trilokchand Chimnani, Sanjay Kumar Chlmnam Aged about 37 years S/ o — Shrl Trllokchand Chlmnam V1Jay Kumar Ch1mnan1, Aged about — 35 years, S/ o — Shri Trilokchand Chimnani, 11 the Respondents are resident of ‘ Idgahbhata, Thakur Pyarelal Ward,‘ .V Raipur, Tahsil 8a District — Raipur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Goyal Vanaspati Products Private DEFENDANTS Director, Virendra Kumar Goyal, S/o — Shyamlal Goyal, Lodhipara; Near Railway Crossing, Village — Mowa, Raipur, Tahsil & District ~ Raipur (CG) / 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, Raipur (CG) Limited Company, Through: - l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE ” CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH A P A : , mm WH11 (“- t I§B : Hon’ble Shri Mnnindrq Mahan Shrimtavg, J4 9.5.201 1 munsef for the petitioners. Shm‘ Goutam Bhaduli, Shri Arvind Kumar State/ respondent No.2, on ad Heard on admission. This petition has been order dated 4th March, 201] Raipur in Civil Suit No.62 A / The petitioner is aggriev the application under Order réjected by the learned trial not bonafide, but, is only inn the plaintmYpetitioner, Whig plaintm‘ to prove; Learned counsel for ihe petitioner submitted that the application for report of the peculiar nature of the co troversy involved in the suit for adjudication, which relates to the dispute regarding encroachment, which cannot be decided unless there is proper report of the Commissioner under the orders of the Court. Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the vance copy. tiled by the petitioner aggrieved by passed by 5th Civil Judge Class-I, 11. ed by the impugned order, by which 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. has been Court, holding that the applicant is ended to eolleCt evidence in favour of h otherwise is the burden of the mmissioner has been moved in the Wm dist § What I fmd Is that the apphcatlon for report has been moved even before recording any ev1dence by the plamw At th1s stage, 1t would be rather premature for the plaintimpet'itioner to insist for report &om the Ccmmissioner under the pmvision of lg” Order 26 Rule 9 of the CEO. However, after recording the evidence of the plaintih‘ and (1 fendant, if it is found by the Court that spot mspectlon ls neces>ary and a report is required to be obtamed for Just and proper decision of the Controversy, the Court Itself may pass approprlate order or the plaintiif/petitioner himself may apply ah‘esh for appropriate orders under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC ’ }J{ With the aforesaid observations, petition is 1inally disposed of. Sd/— anindra Mohan Shrivastav f M a,’ [rim r1 it;