Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Nasimuddin Ansari - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Sheharam Quraishi, Son Of Late Abdul Shakoor Quraishi - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3420 of 2017
Decided On : 23-10-2018
Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 CPC is not necessary if the description of the suit property provided in the plaint is sufficient.
Headnote:
Pleader Commissioner - Appointment of Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 CPC - The court found that the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner was not necessary for the local investigation as the description of the suit property provided in the plaint was sufficient. Therefore, the defendants' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 CPC was rejected.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, defendants in a title suit, sought the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for local investigation of the suit property. The plaintiff contended that the appointment was not necessary based on the description of the suit property in the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 CPC was not necessary based on the description of the suit property provided in the plaint.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 CPC was necessary for the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for local investigation was not necessary as the description of the suit property in the plaint was sufficient, and therefore rejected the defendants' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 CPC.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the rejection of the defendants' application for the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 CPC.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners, who are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in Title Suit No.41 of 2012, are aggrieved of order dated 18.05.2017 by which the defendants'' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 and 10A read with section 151 CPC has been rejected.
2. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of institution of other suits, more particularly Partition Suit No.40 of 1999 and Title Suit No.60 of 2006, to identify the suit property appointment of a Pleader Commissioner is necessary. Another plea urged on behalf of the petitioners is that during his evidence the plaintiff has agreed for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner.
3. Without recording facts in detail, suffice would be to indicate that Title Suit No.41 of 2012 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiff''s right, title and interest over schedule ''A'' land. Description of the suit schedule properties has been described under schedule ''A'' of the plaint, as under:
Schedule A
Description of the suit land.
Village Garhwa thana no.339, P.S Garhwa
District Garhwa
| Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
| 93 | 903 | 0.01 acre |
Along with one shop and one Galiyara, two rooms with stairs and two rooms on the roof of the same all pucca construction.
Boundary
North--------- Abdul Hessam Quraishi
South------- P.W.D. Road
East--------- Musafir Mian
West---------Shalam Ansari and Others in plot no.900 and Abdul Hessam Quraishi in plot no.902
4. A glance at schedule ''A'' would reveal that not only Khata No., Plot No. and area of the suit schedule properties have been described, the plaint gives boundaries of the schedule ''A'' property also. Power under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC which provide for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for local investigation can be exercised by the court for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute and for no other purpose. It is only when the court thinks fit that local investigation is required and would be proper, the court may appoint a Pleader Commissioner for a report on the matter in dispute. In view of description of the suit property as described under schedule ''A'' to the plaint, the plaintiff has rightly contended that appointment of a Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9, 10 and 10-A CPC is not necessary.
5. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.05.2017 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
