JHARNA SAHA Vs. SUBHRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against the Order No.38 dated December 4, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar Court, Suri, District Birbhum in Title Suit No.134 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application for local investigation.

(2.) THE short fact is that the petitioner instituted a suit being Title Suit No.134 of 2006 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Suri, Birbhum for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and other reliefs. THE defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint and the suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiff / petitioner herein filed an application under Order26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. praying for local investigation on the points as per his application appearing as Annexure P-1 at page no.31. THE opposite party filed a written objection to the said petition and then, upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge rejected the application for local investigation by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

(3.) MR. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff has described the entire property in Schedule "A" and the encroached portion has been described in Schedule "B" with the specification as given in the schedule of the plaint and as such, it has to be verified, so that the future complications may be avoided.