PROFULLA KR. SINHA Vs. SRI NETAR MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates for the parties. In this revisional application, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 235 of 1980 has challenged the order dated 30.3.94 passed by the learned Munsif 2nd Court at Rampurhat in the said suit whereby and whereunder the learned Court below rejected the contention as made by the plaintiff therein about non-acceptance of the report of local investigation and accepted such report of local investigation along with the case map and field book for the purpose of disposal of the case and the matter was fixed for hearing.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner herein that the report of local investigation as submitted by the Pleader Commissioner was unscientific since in the area in question which is congested one, the method as adopted for such investigation, namely, chain surveying, was not at all a scientific method in terms of the views expressed by the author Jugal Kishore Chatterjee in the Book "Lawyer's Guide to Survey and Pleader Commissioner's Diary." It is an admitted position that chain surveying was adopted by the Pleader Commissioner. The reason for discarding chain surveying has been assigned by the author in the said book to this effect that in respect of areas congested with so many buildings and inhabitants there would be little possibility of forming well conditioned triangles, as the chain surveying is based on triangles with chain of the entire area in question that is by dividing the area in different triangles. However, from the impugned order, it appears that such question was not raised in the manner as has been urged herein in the revisional Court. The learned Court below while disposing of the matter, in the impugned order held that : "Admittedly no technical objection against the way of survey of disputed property was taken by the plaintiff'. Hence, it is clear finding of the learned Court below that regarding the way of survey of the disputed property, that is the method of survey was not in fact urged as a ground for rejection of the report of the local investigation. In that view of the matter, in the revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot urge the said point when the learned Court below in its findings has observed that no such technical objection was taken. However, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the point was taken as ground No. 1 in the objection. In view of the settled legal position this Court cannot accept the argument as advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner contending, inter alia, that though objection was taken, but the Court mis-directed itself by observing otherwise. It is a settled legal position that even if a wrong statement is recorded as alleged by a party, by a Court of law and the same is recorded in the findings and/or observation in the judgment, the same cannot be touched and/or interfered with and/or to be modified by way of any affidavit or otherwise in any form save and except of agitating the matter before the said Court by way application for review. In the judgment reported in the case of Somasundaran Vs. Subramaniam reported in AIR 1926 PC 136, Lord Atkinson held as follows : "We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgments as to what transpired in Court, we cannot allow statements of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgments that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject and remedy to call attention of the Court on such issue." The same view was expressed by other judgment of the Privy Council in Madhusudan Vs. Chandrabati, reported in AIR 1921 PC 30. Even by a celebrated judgment of Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee, this point was considered in the case of Sarat Chandra Vs. Bibhabati, reported in AIR 1922 Calcutta 584, where on identical question the point was answered in the following terms by his Lordship : "In such cases the litigant is to apply before the Judge without delay praying for rectification or review of judgment." Even, the Apex Court has considered this matter in the case of State Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayek, reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1249 holding, inter alia; "Judge's record is conclusive, neither the lawyer nor the litigant may claim to contradict it except before the Judges himself but nowhere else." In view of the said settled legal position of law, this Court has to accept the finding of the learned Court below, namely, "Admittedly no technical objection against way of survey of disputed property was taken by the plaintiff," as the true state of affairs. Hence, the learned Advocate of the petitioner cannot be allowed to urge that point herein contrary to the finding as made by the learned Court on the issue in question. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, this revisional application stands dismissed.