JAGDISH CHAND Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, vide which the learned Judge dismissed an application for additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Jagdish Chand and others (present petitioners) had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over the land measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas, as detailed in the plaint. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that they were in possession of the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants as to its maintainability and even on merits.

(3.) Certain events took place during the pendency of the suit as a result of which the plaintiffs filed an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner'for demarcation of the property and to bring the correct facts before the Court. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated_31.3.1998, revision against which has also been dismissed by this Court. In addition thereto, an application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the plaintiffs prayed that they wanted to produce demarcation report of the concerned Kanungo dated 9.12.1997. During the pendency of the suit, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Revenue Authorities to demarcate the property in question. It is noticed and even admitted in the report that ownership and possession was of the defendants. The report dated 9.12.1997 relates to the factum that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the part of the disputed land and as such they had lodged report being Report No. 26 dated 19.12.1996. The application, thus, was filed to produce on record the demarcation report and Nakasha Twafat got prepared by the Revenue Authorities and especially the report of the Local Commissioner i.e., the Field Kanungo, who was appointed by the Revenue Authorities. This application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court, giving rise to the present petition.