Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has been allowed and the trial court has directed that the Commissioner report dated 20.05.2011 will not be taken on record and, in case the parties want, again a Commissioner can be appointed only for the purpose of actual status of the site.
(2.) THE petitioners -plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction against the respondents, inter alia, with the averments that they were in possession of the suit property and were being threatened with dispossession by the defendants and sought relief that the defendants be directed not to interfere directly and indirectly in their possession and not to dispossess them without due process of law; along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying that defendants be restrained not to interfere with their possession and not to dispossess them without due process of law during the pendency of the suit; alongwith the said application another application under Order XXXIX, Rule 7 CPC was filed by the petitioners, inter alia, seeking appointment of Local Commissioner. The application under Order XXXIX, Rule 7 CPC was allowed by the trial court by its order dated 20.05.2011 and the following order was passed: -
(3.) THE Commissioner gave his report dated 20.05.2011, wherein, it was noticed that the defendant -respondent Nos. 3 to 5 took the notices and refused to sign and were not present at the site despite notices and in the report besides indicating the boundaries etc. of the property also indicated that the plaintiffs were in possession and along with the report produced photographs and CD.;