SHAKUNTALA MURMU Vs. KISHORE PRASAD BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No.183 dated August 26, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.163 of 1991 thereby rejecting the objection filed by the plaintiff against the report of the learned Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC.

(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted the suit being Title Suit No.163 of 1991 for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendant/opposite party herein.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that the suit property has been described in schedule 'A' and schedule 'B' to the plaint and the plaintiff has prayed for recovery of 'B' schedule land by eviction of the defendant therefrom. This 'B' schedule land is a strip of land measuring 55'-0" x 8'-00" and this strip of land according to the plaint case is a part of the 'A' schedule land as described in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff has also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to dismantle and remove the part or portion of the 'Kutcha Hut' standing on a part of 'B' schedule land and also permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from raising any structure on any part of 'B' schedule land and from making further encroachment on any part of 'A' schedule land.