High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Saranjit Singh vs. Indraraj Prajapati

MANU/MP/2223/2024

18.06.2024

Civil

Commission for inspection cannot be issued for ascertaining the boundaries of the suit land, unless all necessary parties are on record

Present second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff who has lost in both the Courts. It is submitted that both the Courts committed an error by not issuing Commission for inspection of the suit land under Order 26, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) The First Appellate Court did not allow the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C.

On perusal of record, it is seen that the learned trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court have considered all legal and factual position, it is seen that no Commission can be issued for ascertaining the boundaries of the suit land, unless all necessary parties are on record. In present case, it seems that all necessary parties required are not on record as the plaintiff/ appellant had purchased the suit land in the year 1968 whereas the suit was filed on 17th May, 2007, therefore, situation or ground must have definitely changed in the intervening period. It is not the law that trial Court or First Appellate Court are to issue Commission for inspection of the record automatically, even when all necessary parties are not on record or when no prayer in this regard is made by any party, therefore, this second appeal has no substantial question of law on which this appeal can be admitted.

The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : Inspection Suit land Commission

Share :