SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Printed For: abhishek rana, National Law Institute University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CMPMO No. 465 of 2017

Rajinder Singh v. Ran Singh

2018 SCC OnLine HP 889

In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

(BEFORE AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.)

Rajinder Singh .…. Petitioner

v.
Ran Singh and others .…. Respondents
CMPMO No. 465 of 2017
Decided on July 18, 2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishtha, Advocate
For Respondents: None
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. (Oral):— As per report of the Registry, respondents No. 2 to
8 stands duly served. However, none has entered appearance on their behalf. Hence,
they are proceeded against ex-parte.
2. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged order, dated 16th August, 2017
(Annexure P-5), passed by learned trial Court vide which an application, filed by the
present petitioner under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code,
stands dismissed. By way of the said application, so filed before the learned trial
Court, it was prayed that revenue expert be appointed to prepare excerpt and to report
the history of land as per pedigree table, in view of the fact that it was not possible for
the plaintiff to do and in the absence of the same, plaintiff was not in a position to
prove his case.
3. From the documents, appended with the petition, it is apparent that this
application was opposed by the non applicant(s) before the learned trial Court.
4. Vide impugned order, said application stands rejected by the learned trial Court
by holding that it is for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading his own evidence and
he should not depend upon the Court to collect evidence. Further, while dismissing the
application, it was observed by the Court that the matter was an old one and,
therefore, also at the fag end, plaintiff could not be given an opportunity to collect
evidence. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record,
appended with the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned trial Court, while dismissing
the application, erred in not appreciating that under the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10
-A of the Civil Procedure Code, it was incumbent upon the Court to have had directed
the revenue officer to prepare excerpt and the report of the suit land as per pedigree
table as in the absence of the same, adjudication in the matter was not possible and
Order 10-A of Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure had to be interpreted liberally to
meet such like situation. On these basis, it was submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the impugned order is perverse, not based on sound reasoning and
is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. In my considered view, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed somewhere in the year 2008.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, December 13, 2023
Printed For: abhishek rana, National Law Institute University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence was also
led. It is a matter of record that it is at the stage of hearing that an application was
filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code.
8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that under Order
26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, a Court can order local investigation in a suit, in
which the Court deems such investigation to be proper for the purpose of elucidating
any matter in dispute etc. Similarly, under the provisions of Rule 10-A of Order 26 of
the Civil Procedure Code, the Court, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interest
of justice, can issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit wherein question
arising in a suit involves in a scientific investigation, which in the opinion of the Court
cannot be conveniently conducted before the Court.
9. It is apparent from the language of the said statutory provision itself that before
ordering any investigation either under Rule 9 or Rule 10-A of Order 26 of the Civil
Procedure Code, the Court has to be satisfied that the same shall be necessary for the
purpose of adjudication. In other words, it is not a right conferred upon a party to call
upon the Court to order an investigation. On a request so made by a party if the Court
comes to the conclusion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that such
investigation be held only then the Court exercises powers conferred on it under Order
26 Rules 9 and 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code.
10. In my considered view, in the present case, but obvious, onus is on the plaintiff
to prove his case. It is not a case where either any scientific investigation is necessary
or, as has been held by the learned court below, the Court deems a local investigation
necessary for the purpose of elucidating in the matter in dispute. In fact, it has been
clearly stated by the learned trial Court in the order impunged that the Court cannot
be used as a tool to create evidence because it is for the parties to prove their case
and the parties cannot depend upon the Court to collect evidence for it.
11. It is pertinent to mention that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is to the
effect that plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and proforma defendants are joint owners in
possession of the suit land and that a decree of permanent injunction be passed
against defendants No. 1 and 1A against forcibly ousting the plaintiff and proforma
defendants from joint possession of the suit land.
12. Taking into consideration the dispute involved, it is but obvious that it is for the
plaintiff to prove his case and plaintiff cannot call upon the Court to order investigation
by appointing revenue expert to prepare excerpts and report history of the suit land,
as per pedigree table so as to create evidence in his favour.
13. In view of the reasonings given hereinabove, I do not find any perversity with
the order passed by the learned trial Court and thus, as there is no merit in the
present petition, it is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.