Allahabad High Court
Ram Sagar And 2 Others vs Addl. District Judge-Ii, Raebareli And ... on 4 November, 2022
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3732 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Sagar And 2 Others Respondent :- Addl. District Judge-Ii, Raebareli And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,Rehan Husain,Vinay Kumar Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Rawat holding brief of Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.
Instant petition has been filed praying for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Raebareli in Civil Appeal No.14/2000 in re: Ram Sagar and others vs. Santosh Singh and others, whereby the application for commission filed by the petitioners has been rejected.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction pertaining to Gata No.681. Subsequent thereto, they had filed an application for commission dated 18.07.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, praying for a commission to be held with respect to Gata Nos.681 and 682.
The said application has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 05.08.2022 on the grounds that (a) the dispute pertains to Gata No.681, and (b) that the application for commission has only been filed in order to delay the matter.
It is vehemently argued by Sri Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, that Gata No.682 is congruous to land of Gata No.681 and as such it was in the fitness of things that a commission's report should have also been called for by the court below once an application in this regard had been filed and the application could not have been rejected by means of impugned order dated 05.08.2022.
On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents, contends that once in the entire suit it is only Gata No.681 which is involved and the petitioners are enjoying the benefit of an injunction order passed in their favour as such praying for a survey for a land which is not in dispute in the said plaint is simply an attempt to somehow or the other delay the proceedings of the suit. It is also contended that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the court below while rejecting the application and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what is apparent is that admittedly the suit filed by the petitioners pertains to Gata No.681. An application for commission had been filed for a commission to be held for Gata Nos. 681 and 682. The court below vide order dated 05.08.2022 has specifically recorded that there is no dispute pertaining to Gata No.682 and thus proceeded to reject the said application on the grounds as already indicated above. Admittedly once the dispute does not pertain to Gata No.682 as such it is not understood as to why the petitioners had filed an application for commission of a piece of land which was never in dispute in the said suit and as such this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order dated 05.08.2022.
Considering the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022 A. Katiyar