Chattisgarh High Court
Jaspal Singh vs Smt. Indramani Agrawal And Ors. 49 ... on 29 January, 2018
Author: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 615 of 2014
Jaspal Singh S/o Lt Shri Mehar Singh Aged About 43 Years Caste Sikkh, R/o
Takhatpur, PS Takhatpur, Dist Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Indramani Agrawal, W/o Shri Sagarmal Aged About 69 Years R/o Main
Road, Takhatpur, PS Takhatpur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Sagarmal Agrawla S/o Shri Mokram Agrawal Aged About 75 Years R/o Main
Road, Takhatpur, PS Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Sagarmal Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Main
Road, Takhatpur, PS Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. State of C.G. Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5. The Tahsildar Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate For State/Respondents No.4 &5 : Shri R. K. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2018
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who is the Plaintiff in a suit relating to immovable property. Heard the learned Counsel for the Respondents/ Defendants.
2. At the instance of the Plaintiff, a Commission for local investigation was issued and the trial Court posted the case for Commissioner's report. However, inspite of different adjournments, the Commissioner's report was not put forth. The Commissioner was bound to place the report on record. Reasonable efforts by the trial Court did not result in the Commissioner's report being available to the 2 Court within reasonable time limit. It would have been open to the trial Court to replace the Commissioner depriving that person of any bata or other payables even for the work done. In the case in hand, the Court below has merely ordered that the Commissioner will have no further time to place the Commissioner's report and had thereby excluded the Commissioner's report from coming on record. This results in manifest miscarriage of justice. The trial will get stultified. It will not lead to the result of an adjudication of the contentious issue. This cannot be permitted to be happen. Interference by this Court in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution is therefore called for.
3. In the result, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and directing that the Court below will take the every effort to get the Commissioner's report on record. If the Commissioner who has already been appointed places the report within the shortest reasonable time, that may be accepted and proceeded with law. If that does not happen, the trial Court should take further action to ensure that alternate arrangement is made to ensure that Commissioner's report is obtained through another Commissioner, to ensure that the trial proceeds and the suit gets decided without delay. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) Chief Justice Chandra