PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THESE two applications have arisen out of the same suit but on different orders and they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) FOR convenience, the C.O. No.2884 of 2011 is taken up for hearing first. C.O. No.2884 of 2011:- This application is directed against the Order No.71 dated June 9, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 7th Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.1568 of 2003 thereby allowing an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC on contest. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1568 of 2003 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs.
(3.) THE defendant No.1/petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations raised in the plaint. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions and the suit was fixed for delivery of judgment after closer of hearing of argument on behalf of both the sides. At the time of writing judgment, the 2nd Trial Judge was of the opinion that the exact location and situation of the suit property could not be ascertained with any decree of precision. The learned Trial Judge was also of the view that a Commission should be held by a Commissioner to find out the exact location and situation of the suit property. Such a view had been recorded in the Order No.60 dated April 9, 2009. Accordingly, on the basis of the application filed by the plaintiff/opposite party herein, the impugned order was passed. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.;