RAMRUP RAI Vs. RAMPATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Chandra Kant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The legal sustainability of the impugned orders by which the learned court below has refused the prayer of the defendant for examination of the Pleader Commissioner and has further directed for consideration of the report of the Pleader Commissioner along with objection on behalf of the petitioner at the time of decision of the suit, has been questioned in the present application under Article 227 of the Contitution of India.

(3.) The matrix of facts discloses that T.S. No. 20 of 2011 has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of title over the suit land and further for removal of encroachment from the suit land described in Schedule 'Ka' Item I and for grant of injunction with regard to the suit land described in Schedule 'Ka' Item II. During pendency of the suit, the prayer of the plaintiff for appointment of the Pleader Commissioner was allowed and the Pleader Commissioner was appointed, in spite of objection by the defendant, who submitted his local inspection report. The defendant filed his objection to the said report of the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner on 21.9.2012 and thereafter another petition was filed on 25.7.2013 on behalf of the defendant praying for examination of the Pleader Commissioner and for the said purpose for issuing Dasti Summon to the said survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. From the order sheets as enclosed at Annexure 1 series, it transpires that on 9.1.2014 the Pleader Commissioner could not be present and a prayer was made on behalf of the defendant for fixing another date for his examination. However, the said prayer of the defendant was allowed by the learned court below by imposing cost on the defendant and granting him the last opportunity for examination of the said Pleader Commissioner. It further transpires from the next order dated 10.2.2014 that the learned court below refused to grant adjournment for examination of the said Pleader Commissioner and declined to extend the time for his examination and ordered for consideration of the objection to the Pleader Commissioner's report at the time of decision of the suit. The defendant-petitioner filed a review petition for review/recall of the said order, which was also rejected by the order, dated 15.5.2014.