MOKTAR SK Vs. EASIN SK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated July 19, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Jangipur in Title Suit No.12 of 1999 thereby accepting the pleader commissioner's report filed in the said suit.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein filed a suit being the Title Suit No.12 of 1999 praying for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the property in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. THE defendants are contesting the said suit. THE plaitniff filed an application for investigation of the suit property in view of the contentions raised by the defendants relating to identity of the suit property. Accordingly, on the prayer of the plaintiff, a survey passed lawyer was appointed for making investigation on the points as appearing at page no.29 of the application as annexure 'B'. THE learned commissioner held inspection upon issuing notices upon both the parties and then, on completion of the investigation, he submitted reports. THEn the petitioners raised objection against the said reports. THEreafter the learned commissioner was examined in the Court and he explained on the queries made by the petitioners.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, I find that the above facts are more less not disputed. The contention of the petitioners is that the investigation reports were submitted by the learned commissioner ex parte without issuing any notice upon all the opposite parties. It is also contended that the learned commissioner did not find fixed points and so his reports basing on the corner of the buildings as fixed points, are totally wrong. Moreover, the reports of the learned commissioner were submitted by him by making table works without going to the spot. So, the reports should be rejected and a fresh commission was to be issued. The learned commissioner has clearly stated in his deposition that before going to the locale, he issued notices upon the opposite parties and those notices have been made parts of the record. It is also the evidence of the learned commissioner that after preparation of the field works, when he asked the petitioners to sign the field works, they did not sign. The learned commissioner has also stated during his deposition that as the area is a deeply congested one and since the fixed points could not be ascertained, he took the fixed points on the basis of the corners of the buildings.