- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the Commissioner's report dated 26.4.2012.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent -defendants regarding a Bara described in para 2 of the plaint. According to the petitioner, the Bara was under his possession since the time of his father. But the respondent -defendants are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession of the said Bara. In the site plan (nazri naksha) the Bara was with letters 'A, B, C, D', and land around the Bara admeasuring 30'x60' which were shown in Hindi letters ', , , '. During the course of the proceedings the petitioner moved an application for appointment of a Commissioner. By order dated 25.4.2012 the learned Magistrate appointed a Commissioner. In turn, the Commissioner issued notice to both the parties to be present on 26.4.2012 at 4:00 PM along with their respective counsel. The report was submitted before the Court on 27.4.2012. The petitioner filed an application challenging the veracity and validity of the Commissioner's report. However, by order dated 18.2.2013 the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said objections. Hence this petition before this Court. Mr. Girish Khandelwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that according to the instructions issued by the learned Magistrate the Commissioner was supposed to submit his report merely with regard to the land around the Bara marked as ', , , ' and with regard to the Bara marked as 'A, B, C, D'. However, the learned Commissioner has overstepped his jurisdiction; he has shown the inhabitation around the disputed land. He has shown the land belonging to Rajendra Meena and Satyanarayan Meena. Since there is already a dispute between the petitioner and Satyanarayan Meena, the latter may misuse the Commissioner's report in order to buttress another suit which is pending between the petitioner and him. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it seems that the Commissioner has been won over by Satyanarayan Meena. Hence the Commissioner has gone beyond his brief and has included the areas in his report, which he was not supposed to deal with.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents submitted along with the petition as well as examined the impugned order dated 18.2.2013.;