MIRA DEY Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order no. 154 dated March 28, 2008, passed by Shri S.S. Das, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eighth Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 82 of 1987.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsels for the parties concerned and also after perusing the materials on record including impugned order it could be detected that Title Suit No. 82 of 1987 was disposed of and decreed on contest in preliminary form by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) referred to above on 17.6.99, wherein and whereunder plaintiff "â„¢s and defendant "â„¢s half share each in the suit property was declared. Further it transpires that while disposing of the suit learned trial Court was pleased to allow 90 days time for amicable partition of the decree by mets and bounds, but the said order could be carried into effect and as such plaintiff filed an application for appointment of the Partition Commissioner to effect partition of the suit property and the said application having been considered and allowed by the learned trial Court, Shri Ujjal Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate Commissioner was appointed for effecting partition of the suit property. The said Advocate Commissioner upon receiving the writ from the Court below issued notice upon the parties concerned and thereafter held commission work. Finally, learned Advocate Commissioner after completion of his work submitted his report on 21.1.2002. The present O.Ps. being aggrieved by the report of the Partition Commissioner filed written objection on 25.2.2002 challenging the report of the Partition Commissioner and seeking rejection of the report. Learned Court below upon hearing the learned lawyers for the parties concerned and also giving due consideration to the materials on record including the Partition Commissioner "â„¢s report arrived at a finding that the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner is contrary to the legal position and prejudicial to the parties concerned and accordingly he came to a finding that the Partition Commissioner "â„¢s report is not acceptable and accordingly he was pleased to reject the same by passing the impugned order with direction upon the parties to apply for appointment for a fresh Partition Commissioner for the sake of compliance with the Court "â„¢s order.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the defendant-petitioners have come up before this Court praying for setting aside the impugned order. The only point for consideration and determination is whether the order impugned suffers from any impropriety and absurdity or the same needs any interference by this Court.