BELA SINHA Vs. MOTILAL RAKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant No.2 and is directed against the Order dated June 28, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.83 of 1999 thereby allowing the prayer for local inspection, to hold partition, commission for allotment, valuation and demarcation of the suit property, etc.

(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.83 of 1999 for the partition and other reliefs. THE defendant is contesting the said suit. THE plaintiff filed two applications, one under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC dated May 23, 2002 & another under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC dated May 18, 2006. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge appointed the Commissioner to hold partition, commission for allotment, valuation and demarcation of the suit property. Being aggrieved by such orders, the defendant No.2 has preferred this application.

(3.) MR. Sardar Amjad Ali, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has fairly submitted that the prayer for inspection has been properly allowed but the learned Trial Judge has committed a mistake by describing that the inspection is meant for holding partition, commission for allotment, valuation and demarcation of the suit property, etc., as mentioned in the impugned order. But the inspection should be allowed to draw a sketch map of the suit property, to note down the roots under remaining portion of the steam of the trees cut and removed from `A' Schedule property and to note down other features. So, the impugned order may be modified in the line of the reliefs as sought for in the application for local inspection. Similarly, the application for local investigation should be allowed.