AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 19-10-2013, passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 133/2010 on I.A. No. 7 vide Annexure-A. By the impugned order at Annexure-A, the trial court has rejected I.A. 7 filed by the petitioner for appointment of the court Commissioner.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Briefly stated the facts are:
The petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 133/10 for declaration that he has perfected his title by adverse possession in respect of ''C'' schedule property and for other declaratory reliefs. The parties have led their evidence. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner has filed I.A. 7 for appointment of the Court Commissioner to measure and demarcate the suit schedule properties and to find out as to whether they are commonly bounded and who is in possession of the properties. The trial court by its order dated 19-10-2013 has rejected the application. Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the trial court has erred while rejecting I.A. No. 7. Further he submitted that in the circumstances of the case appointment of Court Commissioner was necessary to demarcate the suit schedule properties and to find out whether they are commonly bounded and who is in possession. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the petitioner has suffered a decree for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 223/1997 which has been confirmed in R.A. No. 115/2006 and R.S.A. No. 1475/2007. A clear finding has been recorded that the respondent No. 4 is in possession of ''C'' schedule property. Therefore, appointment of Court Commissioner was unnecessary. The trial court has rightly rejected the application and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
The learned AGA supported the impugned order.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference? It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S. No. 133/2010 has been filed by the petitioner for declaration that he has perfected his title by adverse possession in respect of ''C'' schedule property and for other declaratory reliefs. The parties have led their evidence. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 7 for appointment of Court Commissioner to measure and demarcate the suit schedule properties and to find out whether they are commonly bounded and who is in possession. The petitioner has suffered a decree in O.S. No. 223/1997 for permanent injunction in respect of ''C'' schedule property which has been confirmed in R.A. No. 115/2006 and R.S.A. No. 1475/2007. A clear finding has been recorded that the respondent No. 4 is in possession of ''C'' schedule property. Therefore, the trial court taking into consideration that a Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to ascertain as to who is in possession and the petitioner must prove his possession by leading cogent evidence has rejected the application. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.