ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners/Defendants No.1 to 3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31.10.2022, passed by the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore in RCSA No.8/2015 whereby, learned Judge of the Civil Court has allowed the plaintiff's application to place the demarcation report dated 21.10.2022 on record, which has been got prepared by the plaintiff at her own expenses. 2. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore in RCSA No.8/2015 whereby, learned Judge of the Civil Court has allowed the plaintiff's application to place the demarcation report dated 21.10.2022 on record, which has been got prepared by the plaintiff at her own expenses. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that a civil suit has been filed on 17.3.2015 by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in respect of an agricultural land situated at Mhow, for declaration and permanent injunction, more particularly,for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant/respondent No.5 and an another sale deed dated 20.2.2015,executed in favour of the defendant/respondent No.4 and also for the following reliefs inter-alia :-- ,& ;g fd] okfnuh ds fgr esa rFkk izfroknh Øekad 1 ,d yxk;r 5 ik¡p d fo:) ;g fu.kZ;] fMØh ,oa funsZ'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkosa fd okfnuh dh Hkwfe losZ Øekad 11@3 X;kjg cVk rhu] 11@6 X;kjg cVk N%] 11@8 X;kjg cVk vkB ftldk fooj.k okn pj.k Øekad&3 rhu esa fd;k x;k gS ds if'pe rjQ ds Hkkx ftldk dqy {ks=Qy yxHkx 28636 oxZQhV vB~BkbZl gtkj N% lkS NRrhl gS ij tks vfrØe.k dj voS/k dCtk fd;k x;k gS tks fd okn ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa “Encroached Land” yky js[kk ls nf'kZr gS ftldk fooj.k okn pj.k Øekad&14 pkSng esa fd;k x;k gS ml vfrØe.k ,oa dCts dks gVkos o mlij fufeZr fnoky] QsUlhax ,oa leLr izdkj ds fuekZ.k dk;Z ,oa vkseJh jslhMsalh] egwxkao ds IykV Øekad Mh&4 pkj ij gq;s fuekZ.k dk;Z dks rksM+dj] tehunksLr dj mDr Hkwfe dk fjDr ,oa HkwfrZear vkf/kiR; ,oa dCtk okfnuh dks iznku djsaA ch& ;g fd] okfnuh ds fgr esa rFkk izfroknh Øa-1 ,d yxk;r 5 ik¡p ds fo:) ;g fu.kZ;] fMØh ,oa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkosa fd os Lo;a ;k vU; fdlh ds ek/;e ls okfnuh dh okn pj.k Øa-&3 rhu esa mYysf[kr Hkwfe ds if'pe rjQ ds Hkkx ftldk dqy {ks=Qy yxHkx 28636 vB~BkbZl gtkj N% lkS NRrhl oxZQhV gS ftlij vfrØe.k dj voS/k dCtk fd;k x;k gS tks fd okn ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa “Encroached Land” yky js[kk ls nf'kZr gS ftldk fooj.k okn pj.k Øekad&14 pkSng esa fd;k x;k gS tks fd vkseJh jslhMsalh dkWyksuh] egwxkao esa IykV Øa- lh&8 vkB] ,&11 X;kjg] ,&12 ckjg] ,&57 lRrkou] ,&58 vB~Bkou ,&59 mulkB] Mh&1 ,d Mh&2 nks] Mh&3 rhu Mh&4 pkj ,oa 7-5 lkr ikabZV ikap ehVj pkSM+h jksM+ rFkk vksiu ,fj;k 604-5 N%lkS pkj ikabZV ikap Lds;j ehVj ds :i esa lfEefyr fd;k x;k gS dks fdlh Hkh :i esa] fdlh ds Hkh ekè;e ls varfjr] gLrkarfjr] foØ;] fxjoh] nku] ca/kd vkfn ugha djsa vkSj fdlh vU; dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls mldk iw.kZr% ;k Hkkx esa dCtk ugha lkSais rFkk fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ Hkh fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djsa uk gh r`rh;i{k ds vf/kdkj mRiUu djsaA lh& ;g fd] izfroknh Øa- 1 ,d yxk;r 3 rhu ds fo:) ;g fu.kZ;] fMØh ,oa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkosa fd os Lo;aa ;k vU; fdlh ds ek/;e ls losZ Øa- 11@1 X;kjg cVk ,d] 11@2 X;kjg cVk nks] 11@4 X;kjg cVk pkj] 11@5 X;kjg cVk ik¡p] 12@1 ckjg cVk ,d] 12@2 ckjg cVk nks o vU; Hkwfe tks xzke egwxkao] dLck egw rglhy egw ftyk bankSj iVokjh gYdk uacj 4@1 pkj cVk ,d ij fLFkr gS ij fodflr dh tk jgh dkWyksuh ^^vkseJh jslhMsUlh** esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djsa] rFkk mDr dkWyksuh dk dksbZ Hkh IykV] Hkw[k.M vFkkZr Hkwfe dks varfjr] gLrkarfjr] foØ;] fxjoh] nku vkfn ugha djsaA rFkk uk gh mDr dkWyksuh esa fdlh vU; dks fdlh izdkj dk dCtk nsosa uk gh ca/kd j[ksA Mh& ;g fd] okfnuh ds fgr esa rFkk izfroknh Øekad 4 pkj ds fo:) ;g fu.kZ;] fMØh ,oaa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkosa fd izfroknh Øekad 4 pkj Lo;a ;k vU; fdlh ds ek/;e ls vkseJh jslhMsalh dkWyksuh] egwxkao ds IykV Øekad Mh&4 pkj tks fd okn ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa “Encroached Land” Hkkxij ^gjs jax* ls nf'kZr gS ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z vkfn ugha djsa rFkk mDr IykV dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr] gLrkarfjr] foØ;] fxjoh] nku] caèkd vkfn ugha djsaA bZ& ;g fd] okfnuh ds fgr esa ;g fu.kZ;] fMØh ikfjr dj ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosa fd izfroknh Øekad 5 ikap ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr iathd`r foØ;ys[k ftldk iath;u Øekad 1 ,dv@943 ukS lkS f=;kyhl iath;u fnukad 30-7-2013 rhl tqykbZ nks gtkj rsjg tks fd miiath;d dk;kZy;] MkW vEcsMdj uxj] egw esa iathd`r gqvk gS okfnuh ij ca/kudkjh ugha gksdj 'kwU; @void ab initio gSA ,Q& ;g fd] okfnuh ds fgr esa ;g fu.kZ;] fMØh ikfjr dj ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosa fd izfroknh Øekad 4 pkj ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr iathd`r foØ;ys[k ftldk iath;u Øekad 1,dv@3294 rhu gtkj nks lkS pksjkuos iathÑr fnukad 20-2-2015 chl Qjojh nks gtkj iUnzg tks fd mi iath;d dk;kZy;] MkW- vEcsMdj uxj] egw esa iathd`r gqvk gS okfnuh ij ca/kudkjh ugha gksdj 'kwU;@ void ab initio gSA Tkh& ;g fd] okfnuh dks izfroknh Øaa- 1 ,d yxk;r 5 ikap ls :- 5]000@& :- ikWp gtkj izR;sd ekg dh nj ls 12-12-2014 ckjg fnlEcj nks gtkj pkSng ls dCtk lkSaius ds fnukad rd uqdlkuh crkSj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k fnyk;h tkosa ftl ckcn okfnuh ds i{k esa rFkk izfroknh Øekad 1 ,d yxk;r 5 ikap ds fo:) fu.kZ; fMØh ikfjr dh tkosaA ,p& ;g fd] izfroknh Øa-&6 N% e/;izns'k 'kklu ds fo:) vkns'kkRed fu"k/kkKk tkjh dh tkosa dh og okfnuh ds lkEifRrd vf/kdkjksa dh lqj{kk djsa ,oa okfnuh dh Hkwfe dh j{kk ds fy;s ;ksX; dk;Zokgh djsaA ftl laca/k esa okfnuh ds fgr esa fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh ikfjr dh tkosaA vkbZ& ;g fd] okfnuh ds fgr esa o izfroknhx.kksa ds fo:) izdj.k dh leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ekuuh; U;k;ky; tks mfpr le>sa og lgk;rk Hkh i`Fkd ls fnyok;h tkus fo"k;d fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh nh tkus dh d`ik gksaosA ts& bl okn dk leLr O;; Hkh oknhuha dks fnyok;k tkosaA 3. In the said suit, which was filed on 17.3.2015, the case is fixed for recording of the evidence of the plaintiffs. 4. The petitioners' case is that during the pendency of the said suit, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application for appointment of local commissioner for demarcation of the land and it was also prayed that some private person may be appointed as Commissioner. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the learned Judge of the trial Court vide its order dated 18.7.2022 directing the Tehsildar, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore to carry out the demarcation and submit its report, Tehsildar was again directed to carry out the demarcation on 13.9.2022 with a further direction that the demarcation be carried out on 20.9.2022 at 11:00 a.m. on which day and time the parties were also directed to appear in person or through their counsel, hence the notices were not issued regarding the said date and time of the demarcation and it was also noted in the order that if any party does not appear at the time of the demarcation, still the demarcation shall be carried out and the report be submitted before the Court. 5. Prior to the said order dated 20.9.2022, on 29.8.2022, an application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff No.1 to the effect that the plaintiff has also averred in her plaint that the Tehsildar has not carried out the demarcation despite the request made to him by the plaintiff and also that the defendant No.3, who is a builder may influence the said Officer, hence, it was prayed that the demarcation may be carried out through some senior officer of the post not lower than the Assistant Superintendent (Revenue). 6. An application was also filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 on 29.8.2022 with a request that although the Tehsildar was directed to carry out the demarcation however, he has still not carried out the same as he is being pressurized by defendant No.3 and, hence the same may be carried out through some Advocate or any Engineer who may be appointed as the Commissioner and in his team, the Revenue Officer may also be included, to which, the respondents/defendants No.4 & 5 have opposed and submitted that the powers conferred on the Revenue Officer cannot be delegated to any private person, hence, the application be rejected as the plaintiff herself has not accepted the notices. The trial Court, vide its order dated 13.9.2022 held that there is nothing on record to show that the Tehsildar, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore has any personal interest in the matter and the plaintiff's contention has been rejected that the Tehsidar would not carry out the demarcation in an impartial manner and thus, her application for appointment of some Engineer or Advocate as Commissioner for demarcation purpose was also rejected on the ground that the disputed land is an agricultural land and its proper demarcation can only be done by a Revenue Officer. So far as inclusion of Assistant Superintend (Revenue) is concerned, it was held that since the demarcation can be done effectively by the Tehsildar himself hence, there is no need to assign this work to a superior officer. The Court has also observed that as per the letter dated 30.8.2022, issued by the Tehsildar, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore, the plaintiff herself has refused to accept the notice and hence, the demarcation could not be completed. Thus, the application filed by the plaintiff was rejected and vide order dated 13.9.2022 the Tehsildar was again directed to carry out the demarcation on 20.9.2022 as observed above. 7. Pursuant thereto, the Tehsildar, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore submitted his report dated 29.9.2022, along with all the relevant documents including the field book report and the map etc. Thereafter, the respondent No.1/plaintiff again filed an application under Order 26 rule 10 of the CPC stating that the Tehsildar has not properly demarcated the land and hence, a prayer was made for examination of the Tehsildar and the Revenue Inspector, and despite opposition of the defendants, the aforesaid applications were allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to cross examine the Tehsildar and the Revenue Inspector vide order dated 17.10.2022. 8. However, the respondent/plaintiff No.1 filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of the CPC on 29.10.2022 stating therein that she has already got the demarcation carried out on her own expenses through a retired revenue officer, hence, the report be taken on record. 8. However, the respondent/plaintiff No.1 filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of the CPC on 29.10.2022 stating therein that she has already got the demarcation carried out on her own expenses through a retired revenue officer, hence, the report be taken on record. The aforesaid application was opposed by the defendants that the person, who has carried out the demarcation, is not a Revenue Officer despite the fact that the Commissioner's report has already been received in the Court on 22.9.2022 through a competent Officer, and the person who has carried out the demarcation at the instance of the plaintiff though claiming himself to be a Revenue Officer but he is a retired Revenue Officer. The defendants/respondents No.7 & 8 also opposed the said application. 9. Shri V.K. Jain, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it runs contrary to the order earlier order dated 13.9.2022 wherein, the Court has already rejected the plaintiff's application to get the demarcation report carried out through an Advocate or an Engineer and despite the fact that learned Judge of the trial Court has already allowed the respondent/plaintiff No.1 to cross examine the Tehsildar on the point of the demarcation report, vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2022, the learned Judge has himself allowed the circumvention of his own order dated 13.9.2022 at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff No.1 which is not permissible. 10. On the other hand, Shri Mohan Sharma and Shri Monesh Jindal, counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff, have vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court in accepting the report as it would not cause any prejudice to any of the parties and the petitioners/defendants would also be entitled to lead their evidence to rebut of the said report. It is also submitted that the respondent/plaintiff No.1 had expressed her apprehension regarding the influence being exercised by the respondent No.3 on the Revenue Officer and in such circumstances, when the plaintiff No.1 herself has got the demarcation report prepared by a retired Revenue Officer, the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly taken it on record. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. In support of their submissions, counsel for the respondent have relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Chakreshwari Construction private Ltd. v. Manohar Lal reported as (2007) 5 SCC 212; N.C.Bansal vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and another reported as (2018) 2 SCC 347 ; Zarif Ahmad (Dead) through legal Representatives and another v. Mohd. Farooq reported as (2015) 13 SCC 673 . 11. Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 12. From the record, it is found that the civil suit itself is filed on 17.3.2015, and it is apparent that even after 8 long years the plaintiff's evidence has not even commenced. It is also found that the Commissioner was appointed at the request of the plaintiff No.1 only and for this purpose, a Tehsildar was appointed by the learned Judge of the trial Court vide its order dated 20.9.2022. It is also found that the trial Court has also observed that the plaintiff has not appeared for the purpose of demarcation as noticed by the Tehsildar, hence, the Court itself has directed the parties to remain present on the spot on 29.9.2022 at 11:00 am and subsequently, the demarcation report has also been submitted before the trial Court along with all the documents and the plaintiff's prayer for cross examining of the Tehsildar has also been accepted. It is also found that the plaintiff's application for demarcation of the land through an Advocate or through an Engineer has already been turned down by the trial Court vide its order dated 13.9.2022. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is unable to understand as to what prompted the plaintiff to file the said report of demarcation prepared through a private person, and how the said application has also been allowed by the impugned order despite rejecting the plaintiff's application for demarcation through a private person. 13. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is unable to understand as to what prompted the plaintiff to file the said report of demarcation prepared through a private person, and how the said application has also been allowed by the impugned order despite rejecting the plaintiff's application for demarcation through a private person. 13. On close scrutiny of the documents filed on record, this Court finds that it is a case where the plaintiff, after failing to take a relief directly has tried to claim it indirectly which shall be allowed by the learned Judge of the trial Court, and which, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be allowed as it is a settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly, can also not be permitted to be done indirectly. Thus, when the plaintiff's application for appointment of a private person for demarcation has been rejected there was no occasion for the learned Judge of the trial to accept the demarcation report prepared through a private person, though a retired revenue officer. 14. So far as the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decisions are clearly distinguishable. In the case of Chakreshwari Constructions Private Ltd. (supra), it was a case of amendment and not of appointment of Commissioner. And, in the case of N.C.Bansal (supra), it is a case of production of certain documents when the trial had not even begun and the application was not filed at a belated stage. In the case of Zarif Ahmad (Dead) through legal Representatives and another, it is a case of house/plots only and not an agricultural land. And even otherwise on other facts also these cases are distinguishable and are of no avail to the respondents. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 being erroneous and contrary to law is liable to be and is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. 16. Considering the fact that the suit itself is filed in the year 2015 and even the plaintiff's evidence has not been recorded, the learned Judge of the trial Court is requested to expedite the matter and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 17. 17. With the aforesaid directions, the Misc. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.