Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3935 (HP)

Reva Dass v. Kailash Chand

2025-12-11

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that records of the case may kindly be called for, this petition may kindly be allowed, order dated 16.1.2023 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.230/2013 titled as Reva Dass Vs. Kailash Chand may kindly be set aside with all consequences and the Objections filed by the plaintiff/petitioner to the report of the Local Commissioner may kindly be allowed.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.01.2023 Annexure P-1), in terms whereof, the objections filed by the petitioner against the report of the Local Commissioner have been dismissed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by Trial Court is per se perverse in the eyes of law, for the reason that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the Local Commissioner as is necessary in terms of the law declared by this Court in RSA No.40 of 2000, titled Gopal Dass and others Versus Bismanchali, decided on 20.05.2009. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In terms of the previous order, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of the Court the zimni orders passed by the learned Trial Court and perusal thereof demonstrates that after the report of the Local Commissioner was received and the objections thereto were filed by the present petitioner, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence or cross-examine the Local Commissioner. 6. Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.40 of 2000 (supra) has, inter alia, been pleased to hold that in such like cases where there is any objection to the report of a Local Commissioner, it is the duty of the Court to grant sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective objections. It has been further held that observation of the learned District Judge that opportunity was not asked for and hence cannot be granted cannot be accepted. 7. The ratio of the said judgment is clear that it is the duty of the court to grant sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective objections. It has been further held that observation of the learned District Judge that opportunity was not asked for and hence cannot be granted cannot be accepted. 7. The ratio of the said judgment is clear that it is the duty of the court to grant sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective objections. The Court is bound in law to provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of the objections filed to substantiate that the report was either not in concord with the factual situation or that it deserved to be varied, set aside, altered or changed. The relevant portion of the RSA No.40 of 2000 (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- “The reasoning of the learned District Judge that opportunity was not asked for and hence cannot be granted cannot be accepted. The ratio of the judgment of this Court is clear that it is also the duty of the court to grant sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective objections. There is no dispute that the Court was bound in law to have provided an opportunity to the defendants/ appellants herein to lead evidence in support of the objection filed to substantiate that the report was either not in concord with the factual situation or that it deserved to be varied, set aside, altered or changed. The view taken by the learned District Judge is too technical and cannot be sustained.” 8. The view taken by the learned District Judge herein, is too technical and cannot be sustained and even if, no opportunity in this regard was sought by a party, the Court had to provide such an opportunity. 9. In light of the fact that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Trial Court without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the objections filed to substantiate that the report of the Local Commissioner was not good as per law, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the objections filed by the present petitioner afresh in accordance with law in terms of the judgment of this Court in RSA No.40 of 2000 (supra). 11. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the objections filed by the present petitioner afresh in accordance with law in terms of the judgment of this Court in RSA No.40 of 2000 (supra). 11. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.