THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. f2271 N0. cA° /2011 SII'tGl PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF Ganesh Gupta, aged 45 years, S/o Shanker Lal Gupta, R/o Main Road, Ward no. 4, Dongergaon, .Distt. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) VERSUS <" Khemchand Loda, aged 50 years S/o Lalchand Loda, R/o ward no. 11, Matia Road, Dongergaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENT :FENDANT .i-a ll HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITtON (227) N0. 280 OF 2011 PETiTIONER RESPONDENT DEFENDANT Ganesh Gupta Versus Khemchand Loda WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF JND!A (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri V.K. Sharma, counsel forthe petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19th day of January, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 27-11 -2010 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2008 whereby the application for appointment of Commlssioner for spot inspection was dismissed. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit: as per agreement (Annexure P-1), the suit property bearing Khasra No.299 area •W X 80 =3200 sq.ft. has been agreed to sell by the respondent but as per written statement fiied by the respondent, the agreement was executed only for the area measuring at 1080 sq.ft. Thus, there is a dispute regarding the area for which the agreement to sell has been entered into between the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 5. It is not a case where dispute is regarding identity or location of the property. The instant dispute retates to the fact whether the agreement to sell was executed for the area of 3200 sq.ft. or for the area of 1080 sq.ft. which can only be decided by the evidence adduced by the parties in the case, and, therefore, the iearned triat Court has not committed any illegality or Ksr irregularity in dismissing the application for appointment of Commissioner for spot inspection warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. !t is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from Interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdtetional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is tiable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd//- ' N.K.Agrawal Judge