Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order No.35 dated January 19, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Track Court, Chandannagore in Title Appeal No.39 of 2001 thereby rejecting an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C.
(2.) THE plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.74 of 1997 against the opposite parties for recovery of possession and injunction in respect of the property described in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Civil Judge 2nd (Junior Division), Court, Chandannagore. THE defendants entered appearance and they are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying all material allegations raised in the plaint. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint contending that the plot number of the property in suit has been wrongly described as 98/326 instead of 98 of 328. THE boundary of the property has also been mentioned in the application for amendment of the plaint. That application was allowed. THE issues were framed. Parties adduced evidence. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the said suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.39 of 2001 wherein he filed an application for local investigation and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and on perusing the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff has prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint and permanent injunction against the defendants. While describing the schedule of the property, the plaintiff has stated at earlier point of time that the schedule of the property was wrongly mentioned and the correct plot number would be 98/328 instead of 98/326. The prayer for amendment of the plaint as sought for by the plaintiff as appearing at page no.8 of the supplementary list to the application was allowed. From the copy of such application for amendment of the plaint I find that the plaintiff has stated in details about the plot number and the boundaries of the plot in suit, from which it could be clearly understood as to what is the suit property. There is no doubt about it. The plaintiff has sought for recovery of possession stating the boundary of the plot in suit. Therefore, the suit property, I hold, has been properly identified.
(3.) THE proposed points for local investigation are as follows:- Schedule of commission work. A) To visit the suit property and to draw a sketch map (according to suitable scale) showing the position of Ka Sch. Property. B) To point out the disputed plot by relay and survey of Plot No.98/326, 98/328 along with parent plot after consulting the Mouza Map, R.O.R. and purchase deeds of plaintiff/applt. and his vendor and other relevant documents which will be supplied to Ld. Commissioner in course of commission work. C) To note all other local feature which will be pointed out to him during commission work. Mrs. Sulekha Mitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the local investigation was sought for at the appellate stage on the ground that the suit property and the land of the defendants have identical plot number and so there will be a confusion in determining what is the suit property. If the report of the Commissioner is received in this regard, the confusion will be wiped out. This submission, I hold, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the plaintiff in describing the schedule of the plaint after amendment has clearly stated what the suit property is and its boundary. So, the question of confusion with the land of the defendants does not arise at all. When a plot of land is described by butt and boundary, I think identification of the suit property is proper and for that purpose no investigation is required.;