HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19/2022
1. Bhajan Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
2. Jagdish Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
3. Aatma Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
4. Deep Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
5. Sukhdev Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Hanumangarh.
2. Water User Association Bk-130, Through Its President Hardev Singh, Resident Of Chandha, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
3. Bhakhra Project Management Committee, Through Its President Vijay Kumar Jangu, C/o Irrigation Office, Hanumangarh Junction.
4. Irshad S/o Noor Mohammed, By Caste Musalman, Resident Of Chak 2 S.t.d., Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
5. Smt. Bhara D/o Noor Mohammed, By Caste Musalman, Resident Of Chak 2 S.t.d., Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh At Present Resident Of Village Jhandawali Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi through V.C.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 09:07:16 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-19/2022]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
13/01/2022
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.11.2021, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), whereby the learned trial Court has appointed the Commissioner and directed to apprise the Court about the factual position of colour photograph.
2. Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon a judgment of this Court submits that the Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence.
3. True it is that the learned Trial Court should not appoint the Commissioner lightly in routine manner, however, considering the fact that the Commissioner was appointed on 26.11.2021 and was required to furnish his report on 08.12.2021, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter as the order impugned neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor is there any error apparent, requiring exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No interference is thus warranted as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) SCC 329 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported in 2003(6) SCC 675.
4. The writ petition is dismissed.
5. The Stay Petition also stands dismissed.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 09:07:16 PM)(3 of 3) [CW-19/2022]
6. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall be free to file his objection in relation to Commissioner's report and the same shall be considered, in accordance with law.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 47-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 09:07:16 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)