•^ '..'. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (227) N0. 2778 OF 2010 Petitioner : Suresh Kumar Agrawat, son of Late Brijlal Agrawal, Plaintiff aged about 50 years, caste Agrawal.Occupation Business, residence of Udaypur, Police Station Udaypur, Tahsil AmbikapuF, Dislrict Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Versus Resppnclente 1. Defendante 2. Shanti Oevi, wife of Thakur Singh,aged about 62 years, caste Sonar, Occupation Agriculture, residence of Udaypur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Thakur Sjngh, son of Triveni Singh, aged about 68 years, caste Sonar, Occupation Busihess, residence of Udaypur, ;Police Statton Udaypur, , Tahsil Ambitepur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India) 18.6^010: ' Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed againsttheorderdated 4th May, 2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned III Civil Judge, Class-ll, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja.whereby application ofthe petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPCfor appointing Sub Djvisional Officer (Revenue) as Commissionerand directing him to submit reportafter demarcation, has been rejected. Shri CJK Rao, leamed counsel for the petitionersubmits that during pendency ofthe suit, the respondentswrongfully entered in the suit land and started constructing house despite stay order by the Court. The petitioner/plaintiffs application for amendment to bring the above fact on record was also allowed on 14.4.2009, The petitioner applied for appointment of Commissioner and obtaining report of encroachment by the respondents, however, thesame has beenrejected. Relying upon the decision of the MP High Court in the matters of Heeralal Vs. ThakurDas, reported in 2003(3) MPHT 347, it was argued that where the parties are not abte to decide with respect to the extent of possession, in such casesit is necessary to appoint Commissioner to make spot inspection and submit reportin relation to the land belonging to the parties. -^ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission. Perused the application under Order 26 Rule 9 ofthe CPC filed by the petitioner as also the impugned order. Learned Civil Judge has rejected the application withan observation that from the pleadings ofthe plaintiff in the plaint, it is evident that there is no dispute regarding boundaries and the plaintiff has himself admitted that the defendants have erected permanent wall on the east, west, north and south of the plot. In these cireumstances, the parties cannot be permitted to collect evidence in their favour by appointment of Commissioner by the Court and the facts pleaded in the plaint are to be established by the parties by leading evidence. In view of the fact that there is no dispute regarding boundaries between the parties, the judgment cited by the petitionerhas no application to the facts of the present case. There is no illegality, inffrmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below resulting in manifest injustice to the petitioner warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. In the result, the instant petition being without substance is hereby dismissedattheadmissionstageitself. ~~ Sdi- DhirendraMishra Judge \~,.