HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 59/2025 CM No. 1305/2025, 1443/2025 CAV No. 2357/2024 Dalbir Singh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Pranav Sharma, Advocate. vs Gardhara Singh and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Amit Khajuria, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 31.05.2025 ORAL 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has impugned order dated 15.10.2024, whereby the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Trial Court’) has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC in a suit titled Dalbir Singh vs. Gardhara Singh and others. 4. Record depicts that the suit for demarcation of the land measuring 29 Kanal 19 Marlas comprising survey No. 354/1 out of Survey No. 1 situated at Chack Dayala, Tehsil and District, Samba along with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction came to be instituted by the petitioner against the respondents. Serial No. 69 2 CM(M) No. 59/2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the right of the respondents to file written statement has been closed by the learned trial court after passing of order impugned, the fact not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Further, a perusal of the order impugned dated 15.10.2024 reveals that the learned trial court has dismissed the application on the ground that it was not the case of the petitioner that only the petitioner and the respondents and no other persons were owners/possessors of the entire Survey No. 1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right of the petitioner be reserved for moving application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC at an appropriate stage. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Commission for demarcation of land under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC was pre-mature, particularly when there was nothing before the learned trial court to elucidate any matter in dispute. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of along with the connected applications by permitting the petitioner to lay a motion under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, if required, at proper stage of the proceedings of the suit. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 31.05.2025 Sahil Padha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. Sahil Padha 2025.06.04 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document