GOLEKHA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. CHOUDHURY KEDARNATH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Sathapathy, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The opposite party has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner as defendant, being, C.S. No.76 of 2011 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujanga. The plaintiff opposite party filed an application for grant of interim injunction during pendency of the suit, on which the learned trial court passed the order on 10.06.2011 directing the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property. Subsequent thereto, the opposite party plaintiff alleging violation of the order of status quo, filed an application on 04.01.2012, which has been registered as I.A. No.112 of 2011, inter alia, stating that after passing of the status quo order, the petitioner defendant has raised construction over the disputed property forcibly, violating the said order. The said application is subjudice. In the said interim application, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 7 C.P.C. for deputing a Pleader Commissioner for spot inspection and submission of report.

(3.) An objection was filed to the said application and after hearing the parties, the learned trial court, by the impugned order dated 17.04.2012, holding that to ascertain the real position of the structure standing over the suit land, which is the crux of the dispute, appointment of Pleader Commissioner is highly necessary for the ends of justice, as otherwise, the petitioner will sustain irreparable loss, allowed the said application deputing a Pleader Commissioner. The defendant petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred the present writ application. Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, has not assigned any reason as to in what manner, deputation of Pleader Commissioner is justified in the facts of the present case for just adjudication of the dispute. He further submits that by allowing deputation of a Pleader Commissioner to make a spot enquiry, the same clearly amounts to collection of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of his application under Order 39, Rule 2 A C.P.C.