IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Reasons – Reasons for superseding the first Commissioner’s report must be recorded in writing by the Court.
(2) Second Commission – The dissatisfaction can be before the submission of the report or after that no question of setting aside the report arises if the Court was dissatisfied about the work of the Commissioner and issue a second commission before he submitted the report.
(3) Second Commissioner – The practice of appointing a second Commissioner without formally recording objections to the first Commissioner’s report without considering whether the first Commissioner’s report should be superseded, or not is a practice which cannot be too strongly condemned.

JUDGMENT

By order dated 21.10.2024 notice has been issued upon the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. The notice upon the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 has been served and the matter was adjourned for 02.12.2024 inspite of that nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 the matter was again adjourned for 06.01.2025 and further for today. Today, also nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and in view of that this matter is being heard in absence of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure-9) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur in Original Title Partition Suit No. 100 of 2006 whereby learned court has been pleased to allow the application of the respondents-plaintiffs dated 16.05.2014 objecting to the report submitted by the pleader commissioner dated 10.04.2014 and has been further pleased to direct the appointment of fresh pleader commissioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of drawing the attention of the Court to the impugned order submits that the learned court had only noted the arguments of both the sides and thereafter accepted the objection of the plaintiffs/respondents and not accepted the pleader commissioner report and a fresh pleader commissioner has been directed to be appointed. He further submits that the said suit was meant for partition and the plaintiffs and defendant, respondents and petitioner herein are brothers and the suit land in question, detailed in schedule of the plaint was acquired by their father namely, late Mangal Ram from his own independent income and the father of the parties constructed a single storey building over the suit land and remained in peaceful possession of the same before the demise on 05.05.1976 leaving behind three sons. He further submits that in the suit decree has been passed allocating to 1/ 3rd share to each of the brothers. Thereafter pleader commissioner has submitted report and objection was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. He further submits that in absence of any reason the pleader commissioner report was not accepted and new pleader commissioner has been directed to be appointed which is against the mandate of law. He further submits that unless there is any reason provided by the learned court the petitioner is not having any remedy either to wait for final decree or challenge the same as no reason has been provided and to buttress this argument, he relied in the case of “Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others” reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. He relied para 47 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:

“ 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice-must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions base