ORISSA HIGH COURT
R.K. Pattanaik, J.
Ramakrushna Nayak – Petitioner
versus
Manoj Kumar Behera and Anr. – Opp. Parties
CMP No.200 of 2024
Decided on 23.5.2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 7 – Appointment of Pleader Commissioner – Suit seeking relief of permanent injunction – Inspection of a Commission as per Order 39 Rule 7 CPC is for a limited purpose either for detention or preservation or inspection of a suit property – A report of Pleader Commissioner received by Court is often utilized in reaching at a particular decision – Such a report may still be said to have evidentiary value unlike one received from Survey Knowing Commissioner in view of Order 26 Rule 10 CPC – Report of Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC may not be treated as evidence in suit but to tackle issue at hand, while considering application for injunction moved by petitioner, such an exercise by Court below cannot be said to be wrong or erroneous. (Paras 11, 12 and 14)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Instant petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned decision by order dated 20th February, 2024 as at Annexure-8 of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara in I.A. No.101 of 2023 arising out of the suit in C.S. No.162 of 2023 for having appointed a Pleader Commissioner in terms of Order 39 Rule 7 CPC at the behest of the opposite parties on the grounds inter alia that such a decision is not sustainable in law, hence, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit instituted seeking a relief permanent injunction against the opposite parties in respect of the suit schedule property and not to interfere in his possession over the same along with the proforma defendants. The suit land is morefully described in the plaint as at Annexure-1. By pleading that the opposite parties do not have any right title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property, it has been claimed by the petitioner in Annexxure-1 that he is being threatened by them, who are contemplating to raise illegal construction there over on the strength of a void gift deed and mutation RoR issued in favour of the Secretary Salanga ME School. It is further pleaded that the school in question is no more there but in view of the mutation RoR, the opposite parties are creating disturbance over and in respect of the suit land, which is in possession of the petitioner and his family and is being used for cultivation. In the said suit, opposite party No.1, namely, defendant No.1 filed WS and claimed that defendant No.2 for himself and as guardian and next friend of the minors of the family voluntarily executed the gift deed in favour of the school and delivered possession of the suit land and, hence, denied the claim of the petitioner and also challenged his authority to challenge the deed. According to opposite party No.1, defendant No.2 established the school and remained as its Headmaster and in order to receive recognition and for construction of school building with a play ground, he executed the gift deed in favour of the school. The further pleading is that the registered gift deed was executed on 30th November, 1996 and it was acted upon and hence, binding to the petitioner and that apart, the suit land was muted in the name of the Secretary of the school in respect of Khata No.379/8 and the same is within the knowledge of the other side and public at large and also alleged that the petitioner does not have any personal interest but by suppressing the real facts and in order to harass the opposite parties, instituted the suit.
3. In the suit, the petitioner filed the I.A. for a direction to the opposite parties not to take up any construction over the suit land till disposal of the suit and therein, an objection was received from the opposite parties. In the said I.A., the opposite parties moved the application under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC to depute a Pleader Commissioner to inspect and report the topography of the suit land. According to the opposite parties, as per the revenue records, the school is situated over the suit plot and after verification, the State Government has sanctioned fund for further construction of its building and in so far as, the petitioner is concerned, he is not in possession of the same. Since, the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the pleading that there is no such school standing over the land in question, the opposite parties, therefore, requested the learned court below to depute a Pleader Commissioner for inspection before considering the I.A. for any such order restraining them from making construction as has been pleaded by the petitioner. While considering such a request, learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara in I.A. No.101 of 2023 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC allowed inspection to be held by a Commission and to report back revealing whether any school building is situated over the suit plot or it is a pa
Subal Kumar Dey v. Purna Chandra Giri and Others
Appointment of Pleader Commissioner – Inspection of a Commission as per Order 39 Rule 7 CPC is for a limited purpose either for detention or preservation or inspection of a suit property.
The court upheld the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC for inspecting disputed property, emphasizing its limited purpose in resolving injunction applications.
Law relating to appointment of Court Commissioner is fairly well settled and that the Court Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence.
The discretion to issue a Commission for local investigation lies with the trial Court, and the report of the Commissioner is not binding on the trial Court.
The court ruled that the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner is not warranted when evidence can be conveniently provided by the parties themselves, especially before trial has progressed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for injunction is permissible when there is a dispute regarding the boundaries and exten....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.