[2026:RJ-JP:10865] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4110/2026 Phoolchand Sain Son Of Late Shri Gyarsilal Sain, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Raghunathpura, Tehsil Paota, District Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner/Applicant/Plaintiff Versus 1 Alisher Son Of Shri Deena, (Since Deceased) 1.1 Saleem, Son Of Late Alisher, 1.2 Ishlam, Son Of Late Alisher, 1.3 Amin Son Of Late Alisher, All Are Residents Of Hanumangarh, Rajasthan 1.4 Umarddheen Son Of Late Alisher, Resident Of Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. 1.5 Noorjahan, Daughter Of Late Alisher, 1.6 Rahmati Bano, Daughter Of Late Alisher, 1.7 Mafo Bano Daughter Of Late Alisher, 1/5 To 1/7 Are Residents Of Asampur, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar Rajasthan. 2 Umarddeen S/o Alisher, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Paota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini with Mr. Deshraj Sain & Ms. Sanjana Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 16/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.01.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Paota, District Kotputli-Behror, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner against the Commissioner’s report dated 29.04.2023 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commissioner’s report does not conform to the actual site position. He further submits that, in his suit, the house of Alisher is in line with the houses of Gaffur and Samasrudin and does not [2026:RJ-JP:10865] (2 of 3) [CW-4110/2026] extend toward the chowk of the petitioner. However, the Commissioner’s report shows the house of Alisher from B to B1 as being on the way, which, according to the petitioner, is incorrect. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the report is contrary to the site, specifically stating that the length from J to K has been recorded as 105 feet, which is inaccurate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-5, the earlier Commissioner’s report, wherein the houses of Gaffur, Amin, and Alisher were shown in one line. He submits that the learned Trial Court committed illegality in rejecting his objection. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Commissioner, in his report, has indicated particular parts of the disputed property as belonging either to the plaintiff or the defendant, which, according to the petitioner, was beyond the Commissioner’s authority. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Commissioner has not recorded J to K as 105 feet; rather, the length from K to P is 105 feet, as shown by a dotted line in the report. He further submits that the Commissioner has prepared a report reflecting the existing site conditions, noting ongoing construction in the house of Alisher. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the earlier report cannot be a ground to challenge the present Commissioner’s report, as the Commissioner was duty-bound to report the actual status of the site as on the date of inspection. Accordingly, he submits that the learned Trial Court has committed [2026:RJ-JP:10865] (3 of 3) [CW-4110/2026] no illegality and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record. 9. This Court finds that the petitioner’s apprehension regarding J to K being shown as 105 feet is misconceived, as the respondent admits that the total length from A to P is 105 feet. The objection regarding the houses of Gaffur, Amin, and Alisher being shown in one line cannot be sustained, as the Commissioner was required to prepare a report reflecting the site as it existed on the date of inspection. It is also noted that the plaintiff’s map does not indicate any measurements of the area in dispute, the chowk, or the defendant’s house. 10. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding length and breadth is baseless. However, as regards the observation in the Commissioner’s report identifying particular property as belonging to either the plaintiff or the defendant, it is clarified that such a report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of possession. The question of possession must be decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties during the trial. 11. With the above observations, the present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/9