Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 367 (UTT)

Ramveer v. Babu Lal

2020-10-06

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The matter is heard through video conferencing. 2. To be precise while deciding these three writ petitions, which are inter se between the same set of parties, though engaging the consideration about the bearing of the provisions contained under Order 18 Rule 18, Order 11 Rule 4 and Order 26 Rule 9, which are quoted hereunder: "18. Power of court to inspect.- The court may at any stage of a Suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise and where the court inspects any property or thing it shall, as soon as may be practical, make a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection and such memorandum shall form a part of the record of the suit. 11(4). Form of interrogatories.- Interrogatories shall be in Form No. 2 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require. 26(9).-Commissions to make local investigations.- In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules." 3. The petitioner before this Court is a plaintiff in a suit being Suit No. 5 of 2017 Ramveer vs. S.D.O. Babu Lal and Another', wherein, in the suit in question, which he has filed, he has sought a decree in the nature of a permanent injunction as referred in paragraph-19 of the said suit, which is quoted hereunder: 4. The petitioner before this Court is a plaintiff in a suit being Suit No. 5 of 2017 Ramveer vs. S.D.O. Babu Lal and Another', wherein, in the suit in question, which he has filed, he has sought a decree in the nature of a permanent injunction as referred in paragraph-19 of the said suit, which is quoted hereunder: 4. The relief, which was sought in relation to the suit property, alleging it to be not identifiable and it cannot be determined for the purposes of grant of decree, the respondents herein, who are the defendants in the suit, had filed their respective applications seeking for invoking the court's power to inspect the property in dispute and also for the purposes of better elucidation of case, the respondent had invoked the provisions contained under Order 11 Rule 4 for the purposes of enabling the parties to the proceedings to admit or deny the document, which has been relied by the parties and, subsequently, the application under Order 26 Rule 9 was filed by the respondent for the purposes of commission of a Commission in order to identify the exact location of the property as to whether it lies in the revenue area or it is a reserve forest land, which has been encroached upon the plaintiff. These applications of the respondents were rejected for various reasons, which have been assigned in it by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 30.09.2019, 31.08.2019 15.07.2019 has been rejected by the above respective orders. 5. It is as against the rejection of these applications, the defendant/respondent had preferred a civil revision, which has been allowed by the impugned order, which has been questioned by the plaintiff/petitioner in this writ petition. 6. 5. It is as against the rejection of these applications, the defendant/respondent had preferred a civil revision, which has been allowed by the impugned order, which has been questioned by the plaintiff/petitioner in this writ petition. 6. At this stage, this Court while reserving its observation to be addressed on the merits of the application and its intention and purpose for which it was filed by the defendant, which is still to be adjudicated, this Court while confining my observations after scrutinizing the revisional court's judgment dated 17.03.2020 is of the view that for the purposes of invoking either of the provisions as referred above, which engages consideration in the three writ petitions and, particularly, when there is a judgment of reversal by the revisional court of the orders of the Trial Court, whereby, the application of the defendant has been rejected, it ought to have carried the rationality and the reasons as to why the revision was allowed in relation to the aforesaid three applications. 7. This element of assigning reasons and rationality for invoking Order 18 Rule 18, Order 11 Rule 4 and Order 26 Rule 9 even in consonance to the arguments, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the respondent that since it was an encroachment, which was made on the reserve forest land by the plaintiff, its determination was necessary. Hence, the revisional court's order would be sustained. 8. I am of the view that the said aspect as to whether the encroachment is on a reserve forest land or not; whether there is a necessity to identify the property by the Court or by holding of a commission are all these vital aspects, which ought to have been considered by the revisional court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and allowing the revision. I am of the view on scrutiny of the judgment of the Revisional Court, the Court has not applied its mind at all, but rather a very cursery finding has been given to the revisional court's judgment while allowing the same and setting aside the order of rejection dated 15.07.2019, 31.08.2019 and 30.09.2019, respectively. 9. I am of the view on scrutiny of the judgment of the Revisional Court, the Court has not applied its mind at all, but rather a very cursery finding has been given to the revisional court's judgment while allowing the same and setting aside the order of rejection dated 15.07.2019, 31.08.2019 and 30.09.2019, respectively. 9. Hence, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter quashes the revisional court's order dated 17.03.2020; remits the matter back to the District Judge, Champawat, to re-decide the revision afresh after considering the rival contentions and after considering the impact and the purpose of the aforesaid provisions in relation to the proceedings of the suit and the nature of controversy, which is being agitated; and then pass a reasonable order after considering the arguments of the parties as well as the evidence on record. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed. The revision is remitted back to the District Judge to decide afresh as per law.