SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Nejam Ansari, S/o. Late Tifazat Ansari and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Mojahim Ansari and Ors. – Opp. Parties
C.M.P. No. 432 of 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate.
For the O.Ps. :Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate.

The appointment of a survey knowing pleader commissioner is not for collecting evidence but to assist the court, and petitioners must prove their case to justify such an appointment.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 - Petition for setting aside order rejecting request for appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner - Court held that petitioners failed to prove their case before the trial court; appointment of a commissioner is not for collecting evidence but aiding the court in findings. (Paras 3, 4, 7, 9, 10)

(B) Civil Procedure - Principles of justice - The CPC is designed for achieving complete justice, but its provisions must be applied judiciously based on the facts of each case. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit regarding land ownership which was dismissed. They sought a survey knowing pleader commissioner to aid their appeal, which was rejected by the appellate court. (Paras 4, 7)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not prove their case in the trial court and thus, the appeal lacked merit. (Paras 7, 11)

Issues: Whether the appointment of a survey knowing pleader commissioner is justified at the appellate stage when the petitioners failed to prove their case in the trial court. (Paras 7, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the CPC aims for complete justice, the appointment of a commissioner is not a means to collect evidence but to assist the court, and the petitioners did not meet the burden of proof required. (Paras 9, 10)

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1.

2. Ms. Priyanka Bobby, A.C. to Mr. G.K. Sinha, learned counsel submit that the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have taken No Objection from her office, in view of that she is not in a position to argue the matter on their behalf.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Lohardaga, in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2022, whereby, the petition filed under Order- XXVI Rules-9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court.

4. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners instituted original Title Suit No.08/2015 against the defendants /respondents before the learned Court of Munsif, Lohardaga. The case of Plaintiffs/Petitioners in short is that lands of R.S. Khata 173, Plot No.630, Area 3 decimals and Plot No.640, Area 59 decimals, out of total area 62 decimals situated at village Nigni, Plot No.144, P.S. & District-Lohardaga, stands recorded in the names of Sheikh Maru & Sheikh Nuran S/O Chirku as Kaimi. He submits that the said suit was decided by the judgment dated 06.04.2022, which was challenged by the plaintiffs-petitioners in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2022, which is still pending. He further submits that R.S. Khata No.173, R.S. Plot no.640, Area 59 decimals corresponds to new Khata No.182 and new plot No. 722, but the area shown is only 55 decimal and the remaining area of 5 decimals has been amalgamated with new plot No.704 under new survey Khata No.534 which also belongs to plaintiffs/petitioners. He submits that in view of the above, a petition under Order-XXVI Rules-9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been filed, which has been rejected by the learned court on the erroneous ground saying that at the appellate stage, the said petition is not maintainable for appointment of the survey knowing pleader commissioner.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that the Code of Civil Procedure is meant for doing the complete justice and to buttress his argument, he relied on the case of Anurag Jaiswal Versus Collector, Khandwa & Ors. in M.P. No. 4408 of 2018 [Madhya Pradesh High Court]. Relying on this judgment, he submits that in this judgment, this aspect of the matter has been considered and in para-13, it has been held that if the boundary is in dispute, the said petition is required to be allowed by the learned court. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed for appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner.

6. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1 has opposed the prayer and submits that there is no dispute with regard to the boundary of suit land and to buttress his argument, he refers to the Schedule of the plaint. He submits that the said suit is already dismissed and at the appellate stage, the said petition has been filed only to lead evidence in the garb of survey knowing pleader commissioner. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

7. It is an admitted position that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs/petitioners has been dismissed by the learned court by the judgment dated 06.04.2022, which was challenged before the leaned appellate court and on the basis of amalgamation of new plot No.704 under new survey Khata No.534, a petition under Order-XXVI Rules-9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been filed, which has been rejected by the learned appellate court. Meaning thereby, the plaintiffs/petitioners have not been able to prove their case before the learned trial court and at the appellate stage, the said petition has been filed for appointment of survey k

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top