SHYAMAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. GANESH CHANDRA SANYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants of Title Suit No. 192 of 2004 and is directed against the order dated 27.5.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Krishnagar in aforesaid T.S. No. 192 of 2004.

(2.) From the materials of record it could be seen that the present O.Ps. as plaintiffs of the Title Suit No. 192 of 2004 filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with section 151 of CPC before the learned Court below praying for appointment of a trained Advocate Commissioner for holding local investigation in respect of the specific demarcation of the suit plot being No. 3712/4422. The present petitioners filed objection against the said application.

(3.) Thereafter, learned Court below upon hearing the learned lawyers for the parties concerned was pleased to allow the said application and accordingly Advocate Sunit Kumar Biswas was appointed as Advocate Commissioner for holding local investigation as per points indicated in the application in question. Pursuant to the said order passed by the learned Court below learned Advocate Commissioner upon service of notice to the parties concerned held local investigation and subsequently submitted his report before the learned Court below. Against the said report the present petitioner filed written objection contending that the some portion of the suit plot identified by the learned Advocate Commissioner as boundary wall is absolutely not a boundary wall at all and that learned Advocate Commissioner while holding the investigation ascertained the total quantum of the suit land as 34.83 satak instead of 38 satak as shown in the R.S. Record-of-Rights. According to the petitioners the learned Advocate Commissioner conducted the commission work in violation of the principles of the survey rules and procedure and ignoring the appropriate fixed point as also without proper super-imposition of the matters involved in the case.