Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/110/2026 of RAM NATH PADHA Vs NAVEEN CHANDER PADHA AND OTHERS on 14 July 2026
OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 110/2026 Ram Nath Padha …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Adv. q vs Naveen Chander Padha and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Adv. for No. 1 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM(M) No. 110/2026
Ram Nath Padha
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Adv.
q
vs
Naveen Chander Padha and others
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Adv. for No. 1
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
14.07.2026
1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition filed under 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. 154
CM(M) No. 110/2026 Page 2 of 2
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
Rakesh Kumar 2026.07.15 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu