Back
2022 Supreme(Manipur) 222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Sougaijam Ningol Huidrom Ongbi Binita Devi - Appellant
Versus
Laishram Manihar Singh - Respondent
CRP No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 23-11-2022
Mr. Juno Rahman, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mr. N. Zequeson, Advocate., for the Respondent
IMPORTANT POINT
The Trial Court has the power to direct further inquiry by the Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10(3) CPC if dissatisfied with the proceedings, and can reframe the question for inspection to address any inadequacies.
Headnote:
Commissioner - Easementary Right - Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC - [Order XXVI Rule 10(3) CPC] - The court directed further inquiry to be made by the Commissioner to ascertain whether there was any means of access to the plaintiff's land other than through the specified land. The Trial Court reframed the question for inspection to address the uncertainty regarding the existence of the 'suit path' and to seek details of any other means of access to the plaintiff's land.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of easementary right over the defendant's land. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to carry out local inspection, but the Commissioner's report did not conclusively establish the existence of the claimed easementary right. The Trial Court directed further inquiry to be made by the Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found that the initial order appointing the Commissioner had restricted the scope of inspection, leading to dissatisfaction with the report. The Court reframed the question for inspection to address the uncertainty regarding the existence of the 'suit path' and to seek details of any other means of access to the plaintiff's land.
Issues: The issues revolved around the establishment of an easementary right over the defendant's land and the adequacy of the initial inspection carried out by the Advocate Commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Trial Court's power under Order XXVI Rule 10(3) CPC allowed for further inquiry to be directed if dissatisfied with the Commissioner's proceedings. The Court reframed the question for inspection to address the uncertainty regarding the existence of the 'suit path' and to seek details of any other means of access to the plaintiff's land.
Final Decision: CRP No. 1 of 2020 was disposed of accordingly, and the interim order dated 06.01.2020 was vacated. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar; CJ. - The petitioner in this revision petition, filed under Section 115 CPC, is the defendant in Original Suit No. 18 of 2015 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West-II. She is aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Judl. Misc. Case No. 150 of 2018, whereby the Advocate Commissioner who was earlier appointed was directed to make further inquiry into the question framed and submit a report.
2. By order dated 06.01.2020, this Court stayed the operation of the order under revision. The stay order is subsisting as on date.
3. Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant; and Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
4. Parties shall be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the suit.
5. O.S. No. 18 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he had an easementary right over the suit land belonging to the defendant for using the same as an approach road for ingress and egress to his patta homestead land covered by CS Dag No. 1004, measuring 0.58 acre, under Patta No. 295 (New) of Village No. 45 - Sangaipurou, Imphal West. This easementary right was claimed over a portion/strip measuring 15 feet in width situated in the defendant's land in CS Dag No. 1010 and was separately shown as Schedule-C in the suit.
6. The defendant filed her written statement in the suit, wherein she specifically stated that there was an approach road at the southern boundary of the land in CS Dag No. 1010 and 1009 and that the land in CS Dag No. 1004 was connected with the said approach road by a strip of land in CS Dag No. 1008. She claimed that there was a way/approach road which connected the land in CS Dag No. 1004 at the south-eastern corner with Tiddim Road.
7. Thereupon, Judl. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rules 9 & 10 CPC for appointment of a Commission to make a local investigation by inspecting Suit Schedule-C land. Therein, he asserted that it was necessary to verify whether there was an existing pathway in Suit Schedule-C land or whether there was any other road/pathway connecting his homestead land and Tiddim Road.
8. The Trial Court passed order dated 08.01.2018 in Judl. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2017 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to carry out local inspection. The order reflects that the Commissioner was to inspect whether there was a path/way in Suit Schedule-C land which connected the homestead land of the plaintiff or not and whether Suit Schedule-A land was used as homestead land or agricultural land. The Commissioner thereupon undertook the exercise and filed a report. Therein, he stated that the Suit Schedule-C land was a low-lying area but there was no sign of the same being used as a path/way to Suit Schedule-A land. He further stated that though Suit Schedule-A land had been converted from agricultural land to homestead land, vide order dated 18.12.2006 of the Commissioner of Revenue, Government of Manipur, there was no sign of construction of any structures thereon. He stated that it was still being used as agricultural land.
9. The Advocate Commissioner was examined before the Trial Court in connection with this report on 07.12.2018. He was specifically asked whether the Suit Schedule-C land which belonged to the defendant was the only path/way connecting Suit Schedule-A land to Tiddim Road and he answered that he did not know whether the Suit Schedule-C land was the only way to Suit Schedule-A land as he had never carried out any inspection in that regard as the Court had not directed him to do so.
10. The plaintiff thereupon filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 150 of 2018 seeking a direction from the Court to the Commissioner to carry out an inspection to ascertain whether there was any common approach road to Suit Schedule-A land from Tiddim Road other than through the Suit Schedule-C land. Thereupon, the Trial Court passed the order under revision, viz., the order dat
