Ram Nath Padha vs Naveen Chander Padha And Others on 14 July, 2026

    0
    4
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Ram Nath Padha vs Naveen Chander Padha And Others on 14 July, 2026

    Author: Rajnesh Oswal

    Bench: Rajnesh Oswal

                                                                                    154
                                                                                  2026:JKLHC-JMU:2111
    
    
    
    
         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU
    
                                   CM(M) No. 110/2026
    
    Ram Nath Padha                                    .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
    
    q
                          Through: Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Adv.
                     vs
    Naveen Chander Padha and others                               ..... Respondent(s)
                          Through: Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Adv. for No. 1
    
    Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
    
                                       ORDER
    

    14.07.2026

    1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition filed under

    SPONSORED

    Article 227 of the Constitution has assailed order dated 28.04.2026

    passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge Sr. Division (CJM) Kathua

    (for short the trial court), whereby the application filed under Order

    XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Court

    Commissioner, has been rejected.

    2. The order has been assailed on the ground that the land bearing khasra

    No. 187 min is a big chunk of land and despite being a Khad and also a

    Water Body and vested in State and due to various constructions, so

    many doubts and confusions have been emerged. Therefore, in order to

    appreciate the evidence on record, the appointment of a Court

    Commissioner is required who could visit the spot, interact with parties

    and people living in the vicinity, in order to get the latest status of suit

    land.

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:2111

    3. Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits

    that the arguments have been heard by the learned trial court and the

    case has now been reserved for judgment.

    4. This Court has examined the order impugned and find that the learned

    trial court has rightly observed that when the identities of the parcels of

    land are established by cogent and convincing evidence, there remains

    no need to appoint the local commissioner to ascertain the same fact,

    which has otherwise been established and proved in the evidence of the

    parties in discharge of onus of burden of proof of the respective issues

    framed by the Court.

    5. Be that as it may, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the

    petitioner to assail the order impugned through a regular appeal, if he

    fails in the suit.

    (RAJNESH OSWAL)
    JUDGE

    Jammu
    14.07.2026
    Rakesh PS

    CM(M) No. 110/2026 Page 2 of 2



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here