Raju vs. Manish

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CR-508-2017

(RAJU Vs MANISH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 06-11-2017

Shri Arvind Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners.

This Civil Revision has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2016 against which petitioner had preferred a regular Civil Appeal before the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh, which has been rejected vide order dated 06.09.2017, holding that such order of the concerned Fifth Civil Judge Class-II, is revisable, thus, Civil Revision has been filed.

Petitioner's contention is that the Trial Court erred in rejecting his objection as to the Commissioner Report and therefore, such Commissioner Report on which objections put-forth by the petitioner have been rejected, orders for fresh appointment of Commissioner should have been issued by the Trial Court.

On the other hand, it is apparent from the order impugned itself that the Trial Court appointed Commissioner and Tahsildar- Swati Jain, who had given a report on the aspect of Survey Nos.772, 773 and 774 as was summoned by the Trial Court. It has also come on record that the demarcation had taken place properly and in this regard, statements of Revenue Inspector- Ashok Khare, have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. It has also come on record that though separate field books were not prepared, but a field book has been prepared giving details of all the disputed survey numbers i.e.772, 773 and 774. It has also come on record that the encroachment has been marked in red and land of plaintiff and defendant has been specifically shown in the Najri Naksha (Ex.-C/10).

In view of such findings recorded by the Court, the Commissioner Report cannot be rejected merely because it is not to the liking and expectations of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to make-out a ground for rejection of the Commissioner Report as has been accepted by the Trial Court and therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the Civil Revision fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

@PK