Reliance on a local commissioner's report in judicial decisions must comply with natural justice principles; failure to allow cross-examination and address objections renders a judgment unsustainable.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The Appellants in this Second Appeal were the Defendant Nos.1,2 and LRs of the Defendant No.4 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.177 of 2003 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4/G before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.52 of 2017.

The Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in this 2nd Appeal were the Defendant Nos.8 to 11 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.177 of 2003 and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st appeal vide R.F.A. No.52 of 2017.

The Respondent No.1 in this 2^nd Appeal i.e. Gouranga Charan Nanda was the sole Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.177 of 2003 and Appellant before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.52 of 2017.

3. The suit of the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1 in this 2^nd Appeal) vide C.S. No.177 of 2003 was a suit for permanent injunction, in alternative recovery of possession, if the Plaintiff is found to be dispossessed from any portion of the suit properties during the pendency of the suit.

4. The case of the Plaintiff i.e. Gouranga Charan Nanda before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.177 of 2003 was that, the properties described in the Schedule of the Plaint i.e. Plot No.1799, Ac.0.026 decs, Plot No.1798, Ac.0.01 decs, Plot No.1791, Ac.0.03 decs and Plot No.1792, Ac.0.02 decs under Khata Nos.253 and 254 in Mouza Shyamasundarpur described in schedule of the plaint are the suit properties. The R.o.R. of the suit properties have been prepared jointly in the name of the predecessors of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.5 to 11.

The Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the real contestant of the Plaintiff in the suit. They (Defendant Nos.1 to 4) are in no way related to the family of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.5 to 11.

The Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.5 to 11 are the joint owners of the suit properties described in the Schedule of the plaint. They (Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.5 to 11) have been possessing the suit properties since the time of their ancestors.

The Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have their homestead land adjacent to the Southern, Northern and western side of the suit properties. They (Defendant Nos.1 to 4) have no manner of right, title, interest and possession in the suit properties.

The Defendant Nos.1 to 4 constructed a pucca building in their Plot No.1790 encroaching upon the North-Eastern corner of the suit Plot No.1791 of the Plaintiff and threw garbage into the suit Plot No.1792 and tried to cut and remove the valuable standing mango and chakunda trees from the south-Western portion of suit Plot No.1799 of the Plaintiff and tried to possess the tank of the Plaintiff situated in the suit Plot No.1798.

For which, the Plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing the suit against the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and arraying the Defendant Nos.5 to 11 as proforma Defendants praying for restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 permanently from entering into the suit properties and from dispossessing them (Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.5 to 11), from making any construction encroaching any portion of the suit properties and also from cutting and removing the valuable standing mango and chakunda trees from the same in alternative recovery of possessio