[2025:RJ-JP:41038] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14718/2025 Trust Temple Shri Kailadevi Ji, Through Its Manager (Legal), Gopal Lal Sharma Son Of Late Shri Ramprasad Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Karauli, Tehsil And District Karauli (Rajasthan) ----Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus Uma Lal Sain Son Of Kedar Lal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Karanpur, Tehsil Karanpur, District Karauli Presently Resident At Kailadevi Tehsil Land District Karauli (Rajasthan.) ----Defendant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (Rajasthan), in Civil Suit No. 41/2025 titled as "Temple Trust Kailadevi Ji vs. Uma Lal", whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), for appointment of a commissioner was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the defendant/ respondent is bent upon raising a construction over the suit property; therefore, a commissioner may be appointed so that the actual status of the suit property may come on record. He further submits that the learned Court below has erred in rejecting [2025:RJ-JP:41038] (2 of 3) [CW-14718/2025] the application under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC, and prayed that the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the defendant/respondent has been in possession of the suit property for a long time and has a ration card, electricity connection, and water connection in his favor. It has also come on record that there is no material on record to establish that the de- fendant/respondent is raising any construction on the suit prop- erty. 5. In that view of the matter, the learned Court below rightly observed that if the plaintiff/petitioner is genuinely interested in placing the actual situation of the suit property on record, and to establish the fact that the defendant/respondent is raising any construction on the suit property, petitioner could very well have established by placing relevant photographs of the suit property, which he failed to do so. 6. Further, the petitioner has also failed to make out any sufficient grounds to call for the appointment of a commissioner, as required by Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [2025:RJ-JP:41038] (3 of 3) [CW-14718/2025] 8. Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/11