SHANKAR PRASAD YADAV Vs. MEENA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 24.9.2004 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 11, Deoghar, in title (D) Suit No. 132 of 2001, whereby the application, filed by the petitioner under Order XXIX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) Admittedly, the parties are of the same family and by virtue of family partition, they came in separate possession of their respective share. The dispute is with regard to the staircase and both parties claim that they are having title and possession over the same and are using it.

(3.) No doubt, the learned Court below has rightly held that the Pleader Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence of possession. But, there are exceptions also. For example; in the instant case, as noticed above, there is a family dispute with regard to title and possession of the staircase of a family partition. It is, therefore, necessary, at least, to appoint Pleader Commissioner to ascertain the actual location of staircase and to submit his report only on the point as to the location of the staircase.