The acceptance of the report of a Local Investigation Commissioner by a trial court is a matter of discretion and does not involve a question of jurisdiction. Even if the trial court's decision is erroneous, it cannot be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

MONORANJAN MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners who are defendants in the title Suit No. 223 of 1976 pending in the Court of Munsif, 2nd Court at Burdwan against an order No. 16 dated 11-10-1982 of the Ld. Munsif accepting the report of the Local Investigation Commissioner and overruling the objection submitted by the present petitioners against the said report.

( 2 ) THE facts are briefly as follows :-

( 3 ) ONE Sri Harekrishna Dey now deceased filed a Title Suit No. 223 of 1976 in the Court of the 2nd Munsif at Burdwan against the petitioners and others for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the petitioners claiming title and possession in the suit property and alleging that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 are the owners of C. S. Plot No. 1371 exercising the title and possession therein but in R. S. records of rights 27 Cent of land in plot No. 1371 has been wrongly recorded in Plot No. 1370 under Khatian No. 399 of Mouza Bamchandai or in the name of the predecessors of the defendants. It is alleged that the said land is the part and parcel of the plaintiffs plot No. 1371 and the defendants are claiming adverse title therein. The present petitioners as defendants filed written statement contending that the plaintiff never had or has any possession on the suit land at any time, that the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation and the Plot No. 1370 has been recorded in the C. S. record in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners but through mistake the area was wrongly recorded as 14 cent in place of 39 cent and the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had all along been in possession of the C. S. Plot No. 1370 and their properties were partitioned and during the R. S. record the two portions were recorded in two plots in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and the petitioners have acquired title by adverse possession also.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Ld. Munsif the plaintiff filed a petition praying for local investigation by a Surveyor Commissioner who was to relay the C. S. Plots Nos. 1371 and 1370 and R. S. Plots Nos. 1370 and 1371 and ascertain whether the plaintiffs documents related to C. S. Plot No. 1371 of Khatian No. 99 and R. S. 1370 of Khatian No. 399 and as to whether they covered the suit land or not, the Ld. Munsif allowed the application and issued a writ. The Ld. Advocate Commissioner on local investigation submitted his report dated 29-10-1979. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said report the petitioners filed a written objection dated 12-5-1981. The Ld. Munsif rejected the said application and accepted the report. The said order accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner is ultra vires and without jurisdiction according to the present petitioners. Hence the application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of which the petitioners have obtained this Civil rule which has been opposed by the opposite parties.

( 5 ) THE main contentions of the petitioners are that the Ld. Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction when on his own admission there is discrepancy in the relayment and his acceptance of the Commissioner's report with the finding that there was substance on the petitioner's submissions that there is discrepancy is wholly without jurisdiction. It is also contended that if the report of the Commissioner is allowed to stand with the admitted objections, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced and suffer irreparable loss and injury because the report being accepted becomes part of evidence in the suit.

( 6 ) THE opposite parties have contended that it was within the discretion of the Ld. Munsif to accept or reject the report of the Advocate Commissioner and when he exercises such discretion there cannot be absence of jurisdiction of the Ld. Munsif. It is also observed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document