IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate reporting and valuation of properties in property disputes, as well as the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10(2) of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, in Title Suit No. 779 of 2017 whereby learned Court accepted the report of the Pleader Commissioner overruling the objections raised by the appellant is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Only question which remains for consideration is of a garage situated in the ground floor left by the deceased and is not partitioned by the Partition Commissioner.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant submitted before us interalia that there are serious errors and discrepancies in the report of the commissioner and the learned Trial Court committed error and illegality by accepting the report and directing for drawing up final decree in terms of the said report. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the report lacks proper quantum of land and structure allotted to the appellant and the respondent. It is further assailed by the learned Advocate that the report of the Pleader Commissioner is vitiated due to non-mentioning of valuation of the suit property and allotment of shares of the parties which is required for fixing the stamp duty which would be paid by the parties at the time of drawing up of the final decree.

4. Our attention is drawn by the learned Counsel that although the Trial Court recorded the objection raised by the appellant to the report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner but learned Court failed to give any reason or satisfaction as to why the report is correct and well - defined in relation to the allotment of shares of the parties. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate at the time of hearing that the existence of the garage situated in the ground floor has not been indicated in the report submitted by the commissioner and more so, it has not been partitioned by the Pleader Commissioner and it remains joint.

5. At the time of hearing learned Counsel appearing for the respondent admitted that the garage situated in the ground floor has not yet been partitioned. He further submitted that the report submitted by the commissioner is correct and there is no error in the same. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the areas allotted to the respondent/plaintiff is less than that of allotted to the defendant but he does not need the wealthy money. So, as per his submission report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner cannot be rejected on the ground that wealthy money has not been calculated.

6. We have extensively gone through the report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. We also have considered the rival submissions advanced by both the parties.

7. It appears from the report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner that the respondent is occupying the ground floor and the appellant is occupying the first floor. It is further lighted from the report that the valuation has not been ascertained by the commissioner which is required for assessment of the Court Fees to be paid at the time of drawing up of the final decree. Although, both the parties admitted the existence of a garage in the ground floor, there is no whispering about the garage in the report submitted by the commissioner and it remains joint and has not yet been partitioned. It further appears from the impugned order that although the learned Trial Court recorded the objection of the appellant in acceptance of the report filed by the Pleader Commissioner but there is no such reason or satisfaction of the Court as to why the report of the Pleader Commissioner is correct and well-define as well as allotment of shares to the parties is just and correct.

8. In the present case it appears that there is a serious discrepancy regarding measurement taken by the commissioner as stated by him in his report. The Trial Court refused to attach importance to the discrepancies highlighted by the appellant and came to