Pana Devi and Another vs Ram Lal and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Mr. Shailender Balwada, for the Petitioners.

The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Lower Division), Srimadhopur, District Sikar, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the Petitioners'' objection application dated 16.11.2009 against the Commissioner''s report dated 11.11.2009 and application dated 02.04.2010 for appointment of Nayab Tehsildar, Khandela as Commissioner.

It is the case of the Petitioners'' that vide order dated 11.11.2009, the learned Magistrate had appointed Mr. Kamal Kishore Verma, Advocate, as a Commissioner. It is further their case that although the parties were present on 11.11.2009 at the site, although the Petitioner No. 1 had signed the "Fard Mauka", but the fact remains that the report was prepared behind her back. In fact, the report which was prepared before her has not been submitted by the Commissioner. Instead, another report, which was prepared behind her back, has been submitted before the Court. They further claim that the report so submitted before the Court is confusing in its contents. Hence, the Petitioners had filed their objection application on 16.11.2009 and had further prayed that the learned Magistrate under police protection should inspect the site. Subsequently, they had also filed an application dated 02.04.2010 praying that the Nayab Tehsildar, Khandela should be appointed as a Commissioner. However, vide order dated 20.05.2010, the learned Magistrate has rejected both the applications dated 16.11.2009 and 02.04.2010. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Shailender Balwada, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has vehemently contended that although "Fard Mauka" does bear the signature of the Petitioner No. 1, but the report which was prepared before her by the Commissioner has not been submitted before the Court, instead another report has been submitted by the commissioner. The falsity of the report is apparent from the fact that the signature of the Petitioner No. 1 is not present on the report. Moreover, the date of the report has been changed from 12th to 11th of November, 2009. Lastly, he has contended that the learned Magistrate has not given any cogent reason for rejecting the applications.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, and perused the documents as well as the impugned order.

A commissioner appointed by the Court acts on behalf of the Court. Therefore, the Court appoints a person as its commissioner upon whom it has a great faith. Therefore, a relationship of trust exists between the Court and the Commissioner. It is in the rarest of the rare case that a commissioner would breach the trust imposed upon him by the Court. Therefore, a very strong presumption does arise about the bonafide, and about the veracity in favour of the commissioner''s report. It is further to be noted that on the "Fard Mauka" the signature of the parties are present. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the report which has been submitted is a report which was not prepared before them. The allegation that a separate report was prepared which has not been submitted before the Court is without any evidentiary basis. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has given cogent reason in para 6 of the impugned order for disbelieving the allegation made by the Petitioners. Since the learned Magistrate has concluded, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, the report submitted by the Commissioner is genuine one, the Magistrate was certainly justified in rejecting the application for the appointment of the Nayab Tahsildar as a Commissioner. Lastly in case the litigants are permitted to recklessly challenge or to recklessly object to the veracity of the commissioner''s report, it would lead to judicial chaos. The law presumes certain sanctity about the genuineness of a commissioner''s report. Therefore, the Court should hesitate in disturbing a commissioner''s report until and unless a strong case is made out regarding the falsity of the commissioner''s report. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity or any illegality in the impugned order dated 20.05.2010.

Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed.