The court determined the necessity of appointing a Pleader Commissioner for proper adjudication despite delays in proceedings, emphasizing compliance with prior orders.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 01-12-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous has been filed for setting aside the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by learned Munsif, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur at Ara in Title Suit No. 73 of 1996, whereby the application filed under Order 26, Rule-10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint Survey Knowing/Pleader Commissioner, has been rejected without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that for deciding the issue, an application dated 23.03.2000 was made before the learned Trial Court under Order 26, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint a Surveyor/Pleader Commissioner which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2000 in Title Suit No. 73 of 1996 and petitioners/plaintiffs were directed to deposit Commissioner Fee of Rs. 300/- which was deposited by the petitioners/plaintiffs but due to establishment of separate Sub-Division and transfer of case record, the said order was not complied. The appointment of Survey knowing/Pleader Commissioner is essential in deciding the issue sought for in the said plaint. Despite deposit of Fee when no Pleader Commissioner was appointed, then the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a petition on 09.09.2019 which was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2019 by learned Munsif, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur at Ara on the ground that petition was filed after much delay and suit is an old one. Learned counsel further argues that learned Trial Court ought to have considered the earlier order passed by the learned Trial Court on 10.08.2000 in which the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs to appoint a Pleader Commissioner was allowed. So, the order impugned is not at all warranted because the earlier order passed by the learned Trial Court was not complied with.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that this case is old one and on the verge of conclusion of trial. So, there is no illegality and impropriety in the order impugned.

5. After hearing both sides, it appears that for deciding the main issue, learned Trial Court has rightly appointed the Survey knowing/Pleader Commissioner vide order dated 10.08.2000 and Pleader Commissioner fee has already been paid by the petitioners/plaintiffs. So, for proper and complete adjudication of this matter, the appointment of Survey knowing/Pleader Commissioner is essential.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by learned Munsif, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur at Ara in Title Suit No. 73 of 1996 is set aside.

7. The Trial Court is directed to proceed for appointment of Survey knowing/Pleader Commissioner in accordance with law after verifying the fact from the petitioners/plaintiffs as to whether fee to the Pleader Commissioner has been deposited or not.

8. Since the matter is old one, hence, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the production/receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both the parties are directed to cooperate in the Trial.

9. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the Civil Misc. No. 86 of 2020 stands allowed.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)