Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application for review is directed against the judgment and order dated July 21, 2006 passed by the Honble Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Deb (as His Lordship then was) in C.O. No.850 of 2006.
(2.) THE applicant is the plaintiff no.3 of the Title Suit No.36 of 1990 filed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Contai for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other releifs. THE defendants / opposite parties are contesting the said suit. THE applicant filed an application for local investigation on certain points in respect of the property as described in the Schedule Ka to the plaint and that prayer was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. THE learned Commissioner held inspection in presence of both the sides and submitted his report against which an objection was raised by the defendants. THE learned Commissioner was examined in the Court. Upon consideration of the materials on record the learned Trial Judge had accepted the said report. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred a revisional application and the said revisional application was allowed by the impugned order. THEreafter, the applicant has filed this review application. Now, the question is whether the impugned orders should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that the local investigation was allowed on the following points:- 1. To survey the Ka suit land as pegged out by the plaintiff and to find out as to whether the same appertains to plot no.391 of R.S. operation 1956-57 or not after relaying the corresponding settlement map of 1954-57; 2. To note and report and measure the length, breadth of the Ka suit land; 3. To note and report all local features in and around the suit land; 4.To draw an enlarged scale case map showing therein the suit land and to submit it along with report. Under the above circumstances, in order to dispose of the application for review, this Bench is now to consider whether there is any apparent mistake or any other reason for entertaining the review. The Commissioner was examined in details. He has stated in details how he did the survey. It is his evidence that to the East side of the Ka suit land, there is a pucca wall of the plaintiff and it is existing 9 to 4 chain lines. To the West of the Ka schedule property, there are tile shed varanda, house and privy of the defendant. So, both the parties to the suit have admitted to the Commissioner that the Ka suit land is situated between the pucca house of the plaintiff to the East and the house of the defendant to the West. The learned Commissioner has surveyed the land by triangular survey method and he made the relay of the adjacent plots also. The report clearly indicates that the fixed points marked XYZ have been taken and settled on hearing both the sides and in presence of both the sides.
(3.) THEREAFTER, the Ka suit land was pegged out on admission and the suit land was surveyed accordingly with reference to the R.S. Map and thus, he has concluded that the Ka suit land appertains to plot no.391 of Mouja Monaharchak. The defendants have raised objection on the point that the concerned R.S. Map was old and in mutilated condition and as such, the survey was not properly done with reference to the map and as such, the investigation was wrong. The learned Commissioner in his deposition has denied such suggestion and it is his clear statement that at the time of investigation, the condition of the case map was good. It is his further statement that the condition of the map which he had seen on that day (on the day of examination) would have never been used in his work if it had been found so at that time.;