JAI SIA RAM MISHRA Vs. CHANDRAMA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 07.08.2015 passed in Title (P) Suit No.22 of 1988.

(2.) Title (P) Suit No.22 of 1988 was instituted by the petitioner for a decree for partition to the extent of half share in the suit properties. The suit was decreed holding that the plaintiff as well as the defendants are entitled for half share in the suit properties. Judgment and decree passed in Title (P) Suit No.22 of 1988 were affirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No.170 of 2008, however, the final decree was set-aside by the first appellate court in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2009 and the matter was remanded to the trial court for preparation of final decree after hearing objection of the parties. Pursuant to the judgment in Title Appeal No.13 of 2009, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed who gave his report on 13.11.2006.

(3.) Contending that on an erroneous assumption that the defendant was not present at the time of measurement, the trial Judge by the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 has rejected the Pleader Commissioner's report, Mr. B.V. Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant was present at the time of measurement of the decreetal properties, however, he had refused to sign the report.