PRASENJIT MANDAL J - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order No.154 dated February 28, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Chandernagore in Title Suit No.14 of 2009 thereby accepting the Commissioner's Report on investigation.
(2.) THE plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.14 of 2009 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. They have contended that the suit property described in schedule 'Ka/I' is the part and parcel of the 'Kha' schedule property which is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The defendant/petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. In that suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 for holding local investigation and that application was allowed on contest. Accordingly, a Commissioner was appointed and he held the local investigation as per writ. When he submitted his report, the defendant/petitioner herein filed an objection against that report. Upon hearing both the sides and on examining the learned Commissioner, the learned Trial Judge was of the view that there was no ground to reject the report and as such, the report was accepted by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by such an order, the defendant has preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly concluded the matter. The petitioner filed objection against the report contending, inter alia, that the said report was not proper, legal and the same was not impartial at all. He also contended that the sketch map prepared by the Commissioner was unscientific and that the learned Commissioner did not select the fixed points properly. He also contended that the learned Commissioner did not take into consideration that the building on 'Ka' and 'Kha' schedule property was more than 100 years' old and so, keeping the side space did not arise. Not only that the report submitted by him was beyond the pleadings and his comment on the R.S.R.O.R. being wrong, was beyond the scope of the writ and as such, the report should have been rejected.;