Poonam Chand and Others vs Mohammed Bhai and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.—The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dt. 2.5.2014 passed by the trial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Commissioner has been rejected. The petitioners filed an application inter-alia indicating that the respondents were likely to start raising construction and therefore, the Commissioner be appointed for the purpose of factual report so that future complications may be avoided. Though, no reply to the application was filed, the trial Court in view of the vagueness of the application dismissed the same.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, it is apparent that the application filed by the petitioners was wholly vague and intended purpose for which petitioners wanted to get the Commissioner appointed, is not even disclosed in the application.

If the only intention of the petitioners was to get the status of the property as it existed before the Court, the same could have been done by way of producing photographs etc. and for that purpose, the appointment of Commissioner appears to be wholly unnecessary.

In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out, the writ petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that if further occasion arise, the petitioners would be free to seek appointment of Commissioner and the trial Court would be free to adjudicate the application based on the material available before it.