Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shrimati Veena Kumari W/O Shri Aniruddh ... vs Baldev Saini S/O Shri Shravana Saini on 16 January, 2020
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15687/2019
1. Shrimati Veena Kumari W/o Shri Aniruddh Singh Rajput,
R/o Diggi House, Sawai Ramsingh Highway, C-Scheme,
Jaipur
1/1. Shri Shakti Singh S/o Shri Aniruddh Singh
1/2. Shri Aniruddh Singh S/o Late Shri Pradhuman Singh
1/3. Smt. Yogeshwari Kumari D/o Shri Aniruddh Singh
1/4. Smt. Sanusha Kumari D/o Shri Aniruddh Singh,
All B/c Rajput, R/o Veena Kumari Ji Ka Bagh, Diggi House,
Sawairamsingh Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
Through Mukhtyaar Aam Shri Kalyan Sahay Sharma S/o
Late Shri Jagannath Sharma, Aged 78 Years, B/c
Brahman, R/o Diggi House, Sawairamsingh Road, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Baldev Saini S/o Shri Shravana Saini, B/c Mali,
2. Hanuman Saini S/o Shri Shravana Saini, B/c Mali,
3. Gyana Saini S/o Shri Shravana Saini, B/c Mali,
4. Prem Saini S/o Shri Shravana Saini, B/c Mali,
All R/o Veena Kumari Ji Ka Bagh, Diggi House,
Sawairamsingh Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghv _Pratap Singh for Mr. Imran Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Order 16/01/2020 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') against the order dated 4.7.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the (Downloaded on 18/01/2020 at 09:04:16 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-15687/2019] application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been dismissed.
Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 before the Trial Court for determination of standard rent. On the summons being received, the defendants put in appearance and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 readwith Section 151 CPC for appointment of Site Commissioner. The defendants filed a reply thereto. The Trial Court vide its order dated 4.7.2019 dismissed the plaintiffs' application under Order 26 Rule 9 readwith Section 151 CPC. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that the property admeasuring 15 Ft. X 10 Ft. was let out on rent to the forefathers of the defendants, but subsequently the defendants illegally expanded the rented property and raised construction over 20 Ft. and 30 Ft. land. For effective adjudication of the real controversy involved in the matter, Site Commissioner was required to be appointed.
Heard. Considered.
I am of the considered view that when the suit was filed for determination of the standard rent, real controversy involved therein could be well proved by both the parties from their own evidence. Whether any construction has been made by the defendants illegally on the portion in expansion of the portion let out to their forefathers, is also a matter to be proved by the plaintiffs from their own evidence. It is well settled that for the purpose of collecting evidence, Commissioner cannot be appointed. In this view of the matter, Trial Court rightly rejected (Downloaded on 18/01/2020 at 09:04:16 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-15687/2019] the plaintiffs' application under Order 26 Rule 9 readwith Section 151 CPC for appointment of Site Commissioner.
There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J DK/ (Downloaded on 18/01/2020 at 09:04:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)