SAMBHU NATH SAMANTA Vs. GOBINDA CHANDRA METYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.177 dated June 16, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court at Tamluk, District ? Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No.195 of 1985 thereby accepting the report submitted by the learned commissioner holding local investigation.

(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.195 of 1985 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court, Medinipur against the petitioner and other opposite parties for eviction and recovery of possession of a licensee, that is, the petitioner. In that suit, the plaintiff has contended that he is the owner of the L.R. Dag No.841 and R.S. Plot No.303 in the District - Purba Medinipur and the defendant/petitioner herein was given possession of the same by the plaintiff as per agreement between the parties. THE petitioner is contesting the said suit denying the materials allegations contained in the plaint and it is his specific case that the suit property is not situated on the land of the plaintiff but on the Government acquisitioned land of the 6th National Highway. THEreafter, on the basis of pleadings of both the parties, a survey passed commissioner was appointed to hold local investigation at the instance of the petitioner to decide whether the land possessed by the defendant/petitioner herein appertains to Dag No.303. THE learned commissioner held an inspection in presence of both the parties and then he submitted a report, which was accepted upon hearing both the sides. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

(3.) MOREOVER, the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that the report submitted by the learned commissioner is a piece of evidence and it should not be treated in isolation with other piece of evidence forthcoming in the instant suit.