KAMAL KISTO PRADHAN Vs. NETRO PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application filed against the order dated 27.6.2009 in Title Suit No. 20 of 2008 by learned Munsif, Chaibasa whereby the application of petitioner under Order XXVI, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/petitioner is that he purchased schedule A land by two sale-deeds bearing Nos. 402 and 403 dated 5.3.2004. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants encroached a portion of land of Schedule A land as their land also situates adjacent to Schedule A land. Accordingly the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for evicting the defendants from the aforesaid portion of Schedule A land, (details of which given in Schedule B to the plaint).

(3.) It is submitted by Sri Milan Kumar Dey, learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff that the dispute between the parties is with respect to demarcation of land, therefore it is in the interest of justice that a pleader commissioner be appointed for ascertaining exact location of encroached portion of Schedule A land. It is submitted that learned Court below had mainly rejected his application because evidences on behalf of all the parties has been closed. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 7510 of 2007, Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Swaroop and others, had laid down that if there is a controversy between the parties with respect to demarcation of land, it is always in the interest of justice to appoint a pleader commissioner for ascertaining the exact demarcation of suit land.