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

1987 Supreme(Ori) 145

High Court Of Orissa
R. C. PATNAIK
MAHENDRANATH - Appellant
Versus
PURNANANDA - Respondent
CIV. REVN.  451  Of  1986
Decided On : 09/03/1987

Advocates Appeared:
B.PATNAIK, N.P.Patnaik, P.CH.MOHAPATRA, Sashibhusan Jena, Sunakar Jena

The court has the discretion to appoint a commissioner for local investigation under O. 26, R. 9 of the Civil P. C. and should not decline to exercise jurisdiction if local investigation is deemed requisite or proper for elucidating any matter in dispute.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code - Local Investigation - The court has the discretion to appoint a commissioner for local investigation under O. 26, R. 9 of the Civil P. C. and should not decline to exercise jurisdiction if local investigation is deemed requisite or proper for elucidating any matter in dispute. The court's discretion must be exercised judiciously and soundly, and local investigation should not be deferred to a stage after the closure of evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff petitioner sought the appointment of a civil court commissioner for local inspection to determine the location of a wall. The application was rejected by the Additional Munsif as premature, with the observation that a commissioner would be appointed after evidence was closed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the local investigation was essential to resolve the controversy and that the Additional Munsif failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. The court interfered and directed the appointment of a survey knowing commissioner.

Issues: The issue was whether the court should appoint a commissioner for local investigation at an early stage or defer it to a stage after the closure of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion to appoint a commissioner for local investigation should be exercised judiciously and soundly, and local investigation should not be deferred to a stage after the closure of evidence if it is deemed requisite or proper for elucidating any matter in dispute.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order was vacated. The Additional Munsif was directed to appoint a survey knowing commissioner.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.


( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the additional Munsif, Kendrapara refusing to appoint a civil court commissioner for local inspection under the provision of O. 26, R. 9 of the Civil P. C.

( 2 ) THE controversy between the parties was as to the location of a wall, namely, whether it stood on west of plot No. 306 or on the east of plot No. 307. The learned Additional Munsif rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff petitioner for local inspection. The application was rejected as premature with the observation that if it was considered necessary, commissioner would be appointed after evidence was closed.

( 3 ) THOUGH the question of law is a simple one, it requires elaboration having regard to some stray observations in some judgements that the Court can refuse to appoint a commissioner under the provision of O. 26, R. 9 and require the party to adduce evidence through a private Amin after getting the land measured by him.

( 4 ) O. 26, R. 9 of the Civil P. C. reads as under :-"r. 9. Commissions to make local investigation. In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the marked value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court : provided that, where the State Government has made ules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules. "no doubt, the provision confers a discretion on the Court. But the discretion, as it is well known, has to be exercised in a judicious and sound manner but not whimsically and capriciously. What is necessary to note in the provision is the expression 'deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. . . . . . . . . ' Therefore, where the Court considers a local investigation to be requisite and proper, ordinarily it should not decline to exercise jurisdiction. It may decline jurisdiction if the motion is made at a belated stage, or if the motion is mala fide or in circumstances justifying refusal. A party has choice and a right to examine a survey knowing person after getting the identification or measurement privately done by him. For examining such witness it does not seek any privilege or indulgence. Where the controversy between the parties is the area of the land or identification or location of an object or the land, local investigation is necessary, essential, requisite or proper. It will not be a sound exercise of discretion without anything more to decline to appoint a commissioner. Very often decision of a case turns on the identification or determination of the area and evidence in relation thereto from its peculiar nature can only be had on the spot. In such cases local investigation and measurement are essential. Evidence in respect thereof can be laid by engaging a person qualified to conduct the investigation and measurement privately. But there are some difficulties. While doing the survey, the person has to take measurements from various points. In course of such investigation it may be necessary for him to enter upon land and premises of the other party and he may be resisted by the latter, whereas neither of the parties can resist the commissioner appointed by the Court from carrying out the writ. I am, therefore, of the view that where local investigation is considered necessary/court should not ordinarily refuse to appoint a commissioner for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute between the parties.

( 5 ) WHEN the controversy is as to identification, location or measurement of the land or premise or abject, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties are aware of the report of the Commissioner

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