Judicial orders must be reasoned, as a non-speaking order is unsustainable and undermines the court's authority.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by learned Sub Judge, Teghra in Title Suit No. 188 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 on 02.03.2022 under Order 26 Rule 10 & 10-A and under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 has filed the Title Suit bearing no. 188 of 2013 in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Begusarai against the defendant/petitioner and two others for the relief regarding declaration of bona fide right, title and interest of the plaintiff/ respondent’s joint family over Schedule II land comprised in Khata No. 326, Plot Nos. 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433 Milzumla area 1 bigha 13 katha out of Schedule 1 land comprised in Khata No. 326, Plot Nos. 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433, area 9 bigha 12 katha 9 dhurs. Defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. Plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a petition on 02.03.2022 under Order 26 Rule 10 & 10-A and under Section 151 of the Code for appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner for measurement of land as to whether 9 bigha 12 katha 9 dhurs is one block or not and any other point raised by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1. Learned trial court allowed the said application which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed without consideration of facts and the law. No party could be allowed to gather evidence through the process of the Court and allowing the application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner would only enable the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 to gather evidence in his favour.

Learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Anoj Kumar and Ors passed in Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 917 of 2017 dated 06.02.2025 whereby and whereunder this Court has recorded a finding that it is not the business of the Court to collect evidence in favour of one party and in a matter related to investigation into the disputed question of fact of possession, the power of appointment of Commission for local investigation cannot be exercised by the Court to assist the party to collect the evidence, where the party can collect the evidence himself. In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padam Sen and Another Vs. The State of U.P. reported in AIR 1961 SC 218 Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is without any reasons and it is a completely non-speaking order and hence, it could not be sustained.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that in the present matter after the witnesses of the plaintiff were examined, the petition under Order 26 Rule 10 & 10-A and under Section 151 of the Code has been filed and the said application was allowed vide the impugned order. But there is no adverse effect on any of the parties by the operation of the impugned order and the said is only to assist the Court in finding adjudication of the case. The learned counsel further submits that if there is no prejudice being caused to either of the parties, challenging the appointment of Pleader Commissioner is not justified. The report of the Pleader Commissioner is only for the purpose of assisting the Court for arriving at a proper decision. Learned c