IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1705 of 2006 (M/S) Bhupal Singh Panwar ..… Petitioner Versus District Judge Chamoli & Others ….. Respondents Dated: March 4, 2011 Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following relief:- a) to set aside the judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the respondent no.2 Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karanprayag in Original Suit No.51/2002 Bhupal Singh v. Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. and others contained in Annexure No.5 and the judgment and order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the respondent no.1 District Judge Chamoli in Civil Revision No.01/2006 Bhupal Singh Panwar v. Rakesh Sharma and others contained in Annexure No.7. b) to allow the application no.65C dated 26.9.2006 moved by the petitioner/plaintiff for local inspection by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karanprayag. c) to issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. d) to award the costs of the petition to the petitioner. Briefly stated, facts of the case, giving rise to this petition are that petitioner is plaintiff before the trial court. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in the court of respondent no.2 Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karanprayag against the respondents/defendants for damages of Rs.31,000/- on the ground that due to the negligent laying of the pipeline by the respondents/defendants in Vishnu Prayag Pariyojana, which passes through the village of the petitioner/plaintiff, one buffalo and one cow of the petitioner/plaintiff died. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants by filing a written statement. Respondents/defendants denied the plaint allegations and stated that the pipeline was laid down by the respondents/defendants safely. In Para-4 of the writ petition, it is pleaded that this fact was not mentioned in the written statement that the pipeline was under ground. Both the parties adduced their evidence before Civil Judge (Junior Division) when the case was fixed for argument on 26.9.2006. Plaintiff/petitioner moved an application for local inspection by the Presiding Officer himself to see whether the pipeline is underground or not. Copy of application is annexed as Annexure No.4 to this petition. Application for local inspection was objected by the respondents/defendants. Learned Presiding Officer did not find favour to the petitioner and rejected the application vide its order dated 26.9.2006 on the ground that the application was moved at the hearing stage and no reason has been assigned in the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the District Judge Chamoli. Vide order dated 18.10.2006, revision was dismissed and the order of the trial court was made affirmed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned. It is the discretion of the presiding officer to make inspection or not. In the present case, ample opportunity was given to the plaintiff/petitioner to adduce evidence. Moreover, in para-4 of the writ petition, it was stated that the pipeline was not made under ground. This fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiff and by way of inspection the plaintiff has no right to collect the evidence. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. (B.S. Verma, J.) 4.3.2011 RG