Local Inspection Essential To Resolve Property Identity Disputes: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has reinforced the discretionary power of trial courts to appoint Court Commissioners for local inspection, ruling that such measures are vital for effective adjudication when the identity or boundaries of a suit property are in serious dispute. In a sharp rebuke to litigants attempting to boycott judicial proceedings, the Court held that a party cannot challenge the veracity of a Commissioner's report after deliberately refusing to sign it or participate in its conclusion.

Justice Maneesh Sharma presided over the matter, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Constitution of India to examine the legality of orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bhim. The Bench was tasked with determining whether the appointment of a Commissioner and the subsequent acceptance of his inspection report amounted to an illegal collection of evidence or a valid exercise of judicial discretion.

Key Takeaways

Curbing Procedural Obstructionism

Litigants who deliberately boycott local inspections or refuse to sign Commissioner reports are precluded from later challenging the report's validity based on those same self-created grounds.

Identity Disputes Warrant Inspection

In cases where parties rely on conflicting sale deeds and Khasra numbers for the same physical structure, local inspection is a necessary tool to obtain full factual information.

Limited Supervisory Scope

High Courts under Article 227 will not act as appellate courts to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent illegality or a jurisdictional error.

Hierarchy of Reports

In instances of conflicting findings between different court-appointed officials, the court may specify which report holds precedence, ensuring clarity for the trial stage.

Court Discretion Under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC

The Rajasthan High Court analyzed the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, noting that the power to inspect a subject matter is intended to assist the court in obtaining full information. The Bench observed that when parties are litigating over whether a shop is situated in Khasra No. 16558/10491 or Khasra No. 10494, an order for local inspection is neither perverse nor arbitrary. The Rajasthan High Court explained that "...the power to appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect the subject matter of a suit, is a discretionary power to be exercised by the Court for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence for the complete and effective adjudication of the lis. In cases where the identity, boundaries and location of the suit property are seriously disputed, as in the present case... an order directing local inspection cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary in any manner."

Observations on Litigant Conduct

The Rajasthan High Court took a dim view of the petitioner’s conduct during the inspection. It was noted that the petitioner's counsel had abruptly left the site and refused to sign the report. The Bench clarified that such conduct cannot be used as a shield to assail the report's findings.

Ratio

The power of a civil court to appoint a Commissioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the CPC is a discretionary tool meant for obtaining full information necessary for effective adjudication. Where the physical identity or location of a property is the core of the dispute, local inspection does not constitute an 'illegal collection of evidence' but is a valid procedural step. Furthermore, a party that voluntarily withdraws from a court-ordered process or refuses to sign a report is estopped from challenging that report on the grounds of its alleged procedural incompleteness.

Background

The dispute originated from a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner, who claimed ownership of a shop via a 2021 sale deed. The respondents contested this, asserting they had owned and possessed the same shop since 1983 under a different Khasra number. To resolve the confusion regarding the shop's actual location, the Trial Court appointed a Commissioner.

The petitioner challenged both the appointment and the resulting report, alleging the Commissioner acted at the respondents' dictation. The Rajasthan High Court, however, found that the Commissioner merely recorded physical features without adjudicating on title. Finding no jurisdictional error, the Bench dismissed the writ petition, maintaining that supervisory jurisdiction is restricted to correcting patent illegalities.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7901/2022
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:52925
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. Pawan Mandot & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Deelip Kawadia
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghu Raj Sharma, Mr. Gopal Lal Acharya

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 31068