ISHWARI DAYAL Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 1st October, 2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Deeg allowing an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent(hereinafter plaintiff) under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC and appointing a Commissioner for local inspection of the property in dispute in the suit for permanent injunction.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter defendant) submitted that the order impugned is an unreasoned and arbitrary order. He submits that discretionary orders albeit the prerogative of the courts should be reasoned orders. Counsel submits that the impugned order violates the requirement of Rule 67 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 (hereinafter the Rules of 1986) in failing to detail the points on which the Commissioner had to report. He further submits that an earlier report also following a local inspection by the Commissioner appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC had been obtained on 1st October, 2000 in respect of which no objection had been filed and this aspect of the matter was also not considered by the trial court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition including the impugned order.