- (1.) Petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 25.09.2014, passed by the trial Court appointing local commissioner to demarcate the disputed khasra numbers. The suit is filed by respondents no. 1 to 9 before the trial Court for possession by way of partition. It is stated that the plots mentioned in para 2(i) of the plaint is part of khasra no. 244//90/5 and plot mentioned in para no. 2(ii) bears khasra no. 244/115 and plot mentioned in para 2(iii) is forming part of khasra no. 244/113/2/1. It is stated that contesting respondents have disputed the aforesaid allegation of fact that the plot mentioned in para 2(i) and 2(iii) are part of khasra number aforesaid. Since there is serious dispute about location and identity of suit property it was required to demarcate the land mentioned in para no. 2 (i) and 2 (iii) of the plaint for which revenue official was appointed as a local commissioner. The trial Court has observed as under:- "..............It is a disputed fact in the present case that whether the suit property mentioned in para no. 2 of the plaint pertains to khasra no. 244/90/5, 244/115 and khasra no. 244/113/2/1 at village Bhalaut and the defendants no. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 have disputed this fact by alleging that the properties enumerated in para no. 2 (i) and (iii) of the plaint are not part of khasra no. 244/90/5, 244/115 and 244/113/2/1. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that serious dispute is between the parites to the suit with regard to the location and identity of the suit property mentioned in para no. 2 (i) and (iii) of the plaint, which requires local investigation and proper demarcation by some competent person. Hence, for the proper adjudication of the present matter in the suit it is necessary to appoint the Local Commissioner pertaining to the revenue authority. Therefore, Halka Kanoongo Halka Bhaulat is, hereby, appointed as Local Commissioner in the present case to demarcate the suit property and ascertain the factual position of the suit property and also to report that the plots mentioned in para no. 2(i) and 2 (iii) of the plaint pertains to khasra no. 244/90/5, 244/155 and 244/113/2/1. The fee of the Local Commissioner shall give notice to both the parties before pursuing with the examination and preparation of report qua the suit property. He can have access to the case file, in case, the requirement for the same is felt by him in regard to carrying out his function as Local Commissioner in this case."
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the impugned order and the paper-book.
(3.) It was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties have already concluded evidence and the case was fixed for 21.05.2014, when the application culminating in the impugned order was passed. It was contended that the evidence sought to be led could be produced by the appellant in affirmative only.;