IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of a local investigation commission to ascertain the demarcation and possession of purchased lands in a dispute, especially when the specific case is based on the demarcation and measurement of the lands.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been assailed against the order No. 35 dated 21st August, 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 32 of 2017.

2. The defendants/petitioners state that the plaintiff/opposite parties herein filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction against the present defendants/petitioners in respect of the suit property to the plaint. The defendants/petitioners in their written statement cum counter claim have prayed interalia for a declaration of the defendants’ title in the suit property and for eviction of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8 from the schedule property mentioned counter claim and for khas possession in favour of defendants in respect of 12 decimal of land out of 30 decimal in suit plot.

3. Defendants/petitioners’ specific case in their counter-claim is that they have purchased 12 decimal of suit plot with definite demarcation having old structure thereon along with 09 decimal non-suit plot form original owner Satadal Mukhopadhyay by registered deed dated 10.01.2017 and thereafter purchased 06 decimal from suit plot by another registered deed dated 16.02..2017 with definite demarcation. Their further case is they had requested plaintiff no. 2 to 8 to vacate said purchased land measuring 12 decimal but said plaintiff requested them to grant some more time to vacate but ultimately, they refused to vacate for which defendants filed the suit in the nature of counter claim.

4. Plaintiff No.1 on the other had contended that plaintiff no.1 is a primary school and plaintiff no. 2 to 8 are teachers. On 18.01.2017 the defendants tried to take forcible possession of suit property and with the intervention of police they were resisted. According to plaintiff, defendants are trying to grab the school property for promoting business and are trying to sell the property where the school situates and for which plaintiffs prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants.

5. It is not in dispute that L.R. suit plot No. 3483 is measuring 30 decimal. Defendants, contended their purchased 12 decimal is comprising of one storied structure which is butted and bounded as per schedule of counter claim. Defendants/petitioners further contention is the plaintiffs/opposite parties are in possession of 12 decimals of land in the suit plot. Now the plaintiffs/opposite parties are trying to grab the remaining 18 decimals of the land in the suit property taking a plea that they have no playground in the said School.

6. During pendency of the said suit the defendants/petitioners filed an application seeking local investigation commission under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed written objection against the said application. In the petition for local investigation commission defendants/petitioners contended that plaintiffs/opposite parties in their written statement against counter-claim stated that defendants claim that schedule of counter claim measuring 12 decimal is butted and bounded is vague, imaginary and incorrect. Accordingly to elucidate real controversy over allegedly butted and bounded land measuring 12 decimal of land in suit plot, local investigation is absolutely necessary. Such local investigation is also required to elucidate whether plaints/School building covering 30 decimal of land as claimed by plaintiff or plaintiff/school situates covering only 12 decimal of land. Learned court below rejected the defendants’ aforesaid petition for local investigation commission by the impugned order holding that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collection of evidence.

7. In this context learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon some decisions of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Duncun International (India) Ltd. Vs. Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors. (C.O. 3641 of 2018) dated December 13, 2022; Rina Mallic