- (1.) HEARD Sri Rama Shanker Singh, for the petitioners and Sri R.P. Misra -II, for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Additional Civil Judge (SD) dated 11.12.2013, rejecting the application of the petitioners for summoning Advocate's Commissioner for recording his statement as witness and order of District Judge 14.03.2014, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners from the aforesaid order.
(3.) KAUSHAL Kishore Tewari (now represented by the petitioners) filed a suit (registered as R.S. No. 63 of 2000) for permanent injunction, restraining Har Prasad Tewari and others ( the defendants -respondents) from interfering in his possession over plot 366 situated in village Kathwara, pargana Mohana, district Lucknow and for realization of Rs. 5000/ -along with interest as damages for demolishing structures lying upon the land in dispute. In the plaint, the plaintiff stated that he was owner of the land in dispute and constructions lying upon it, which was bounded by boundary wall. In the southern side of plot 366, house of the defendants was lying on plot 367. Main gate of the house of the defendants was in southern side and there was one door in eastern side of their house. In order to grab the land of the plaintiff, the defendants demolished wall of the house of the plaintiff in the night of 27/28.12.1999 and they were removing the bricks and wastage from the spot. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed and application for interim injunction and another application for issue of Advocate Commissioner for service of notice, interim order on the defendants and for inspection, measurement of the disputed property and making site plan and note the various things lying over the land in dispute. Trial Court by order dated 23.02.2000 issued Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the spot on 27.02.2000 and submitted his report dated 27.02.2000. The defendants filed their objection against the Commissioner's report dated 27.02.2000. Trial Court by order dated 26.11.2002, held that as the commissioner was issued under Order 39 Rule 7 C.P.C. and not under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. as such it is not proper to confirm the report but the report was kept on record.;