Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 546 (RAJ)

Nathuram v. Raghunath

2011-03-11

PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

body2011
MATHUR, M.—This revision petition has been filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short to be referred as `the Act') against the order passed by the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar on 5.4.2010 in civil suit No. 163/2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the appeal filed by the present non-petitioner No. 1 against petitioner and rest of the non-petitioners before Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar, petitioner Nathu Ram filed an application for site inspection of the disputed land on 14.10.2009 and that application was rejected by the S.O. - cum- RAA, Sikar on 5.4.2010 saying that at the stage of final argument, site inspection is not necessary. Hence aggrieved by that order dated 5.4.2010, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the proper appreciation of the evidence and rightful adjudication of the matter, it is necessary that site should be inspected and actual position with respect to possession of the disputed land may be obtained by appointing Commission. But ignoring the above facts, learned subordinate Court has refused to appoint the Commissioner and rejected the application without assigning speaking reasons solely on the ground of delay. Hence, impugned order of the subordinate Court be set aside and Commissioner may be appointed for the site inspection. 5. On the contrary, learned advocates for non-petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioners No. 9 to 11 submitted that case is fixed for the final argument and at this juncture for the purpose of creation & collection of evidence, site inspection is not warranted. Hence, learned subordinate Court has passed the impugned order in right style. Therefore, revision be dismissed. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully scanned the matter. 7. This fact is not disputed that inspection of the site or appointment of Commissioner is a matter which lies in the discretion of the Court. Moreover, site inspection cannot be permitted for the purpose of collection of the evidence. The party has to prove his case on the basis of the evidence adduced by them. Neither the Commissioner can be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence nor can the report of the Commissioner be used as substantial evidence. Moreover, site inspection cannot be permitted for the purpose of collection of the evidence. The party has to prove his case on the basis of the evidence adduced by them. Neither the Commissioner can be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence nor can the report of the Commissioner be used as substantial evidence. The facts narrated in application filed before the learned subordinate Court for site inspection clearly reveals that for the purpose of collection of evidence with regard to possession of the disputed land, this application has been filed. Hence, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for proper appreciation of the evidence site inspection is necessary, has no legal force. As the reasons stated above, Court cannot be instrument for the purpose of collection of evidence, hence learned subordinate Court did not commit any irregularity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order especially when the case is fixed for the final argument at appellate stage. 8. Hence in view of the above circumstances, this Court finds no reasons to interfere in the order passed by the learned Subordinate Court. Therefore, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. Pronounced in open Court.