Allowed¶17

Champa Ghosal and Ors. v. Pradhan, 2 No. Ajabnagar Gram Panchayet and Ors.

Calcutta HC21 May 2026CO/2122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order 26 Rule 9 CPC local investigation; commission appointment; dismissal of commissioner application set aside; dispute as to identification of property; boundary/encroachment context; defendants ex parte; legal aid matter; remand to Trial Court; measurement per point of determination; C.O. 2122 OF 2024; Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.; decision dated 21.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order No. 30 dated 28.03.2024 set aside; petition allowed; matter remanded to the learned Trial Court with direction to appoint a legal commissioner to carry out measurement as per the point of determination in the Order 26 Rule 9 CPC application; commissioner's fees payable by legal aid if permissible under Rules. ¶17

Champa Ghosal and Ors. Vs Pradhan, 2 No. Ajabnagar Gram Panchayet and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC seeking local investigation, on grounds alleged to be extraneous to that provision.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Order 26 Rule 9 CPC can be invoked where the Court considers that local investigation is requisite or proper for the purpose of adjudication of the matter in dispute.

¶14

Key takeaways

Perusal of the pleadings indicates that there is some dispute as to the identification of the property in dispute.ratio¶15
The Court considered it expedient in the interest of justice to hold a local investigation for complete adjudication of the matter in dispute.ratio¶16
The expediency of holding the local investigation was viewed particularly in light of the fact that the defendants are ex parte.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Champa Ghosal & Ors. v. Pradhan, 2 No. Ajabnagar Gram Panchayet at Hazrapara & Ors., C.O. 2122 OF 2024 (decided 21.05.2026, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.): The petition challenging the learned Trial Court's Order No. 30 dated 28.03.2024 dismissing an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code was allowed and the impugned order set aside. Observing that Order 26 Rule 9 CPC can be invoked where the Court considers local investigation requisite or proper for adjudication, and finding from the pleadings a dispute as to identification of the property in dispute, the Court held a local investigation expedient in the interest of justice for complete adjudication, particularly as the defendants were ex parte. The matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court with a direction to appoint a legal commissioner to carry out the measurement as per the point of determination in the application; since the matter is pursued through legal aid, the commissioner's fees may be paid by legal aid if permissible under the Rules.

¶1

C.O. 2122 OF 2024

¶2

21.05.2026 Sl no. 37 Ct no. 2 P.M.

¶3

Champa Ghosal & Ors.

¶4

- Vs –

¶5

Pradhan, 2 No. Ajabnagar Gram Panchayet at Hazrapara & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Indranath Mukherjee Ms. Anita Khatri ... for the petitioner

¶7

Present petition has been filed challenging the order No. 30 dated 28.03.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed inter alia holding that the application has been filed at a belated stage and there is no dispute of encroachment. Learned Trial Court inter alia held that local investigation is required for boundary dispute when it ex facie appears to have happened by some encroachment being believable in nature.

¶8

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has fallen into error by rejecting the application on the grounds which are extraneous to Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel submits that there is a dispute as to the identification of the property as shown in the schedule sketch map.

¶10

¶11

The opposite parties have duly been served. However, none has chosen to appear.

¶12

It is also pertinent to mention here that opposite party/defendant are ex parte before the learned Trial Court.

¶13

It is also pertinent to mention that the present matter is being pursued by the legal Aid.

¶14

7. Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. can be invoked if the Court considers that the local investigation is requisite or proper for the purpose of adjudication in the matter in dispute.

¶15

8. Perusal of the pleadings indicates that there is some dispute as to the identification of the property in dispute.

¶16

9. The Court considers that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the local investigation is held for the purpose of complete adjudication of the matter in dispute particularly in view of the facts that the defendants are ex parte.

¶17

10. Hence the impugned order is set aside. The present petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court is directed to appoint the legal commissioner for the purpose of carrying

¶18

¶19

out the measurement as per point of determination given in the application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C..

¶20

Since it is a legal aid matter the fees of the legal commissioner may be paid by the legal aid, if permissible under Rules.

¶21

This petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all usual requisite formalities..

¶23

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)

Champa Ghosal and Ors. v. Pradhan, 2 No. Ajabnagar Gram Panchayet and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Champa Ghosal and Ors. v. Pradhan, 2 No. Ajabnagar Gram Panchayet and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Banshibadanananda Das Vs Sree Sree Gour Godadhar and Ors. Rep by Ors.

Sree Sree Gour Gadadhar and Ors. Vs Ardhendu Bikes Das and Ors.

Shila Devi Vs Basanti Chakraborty and Anr.

Manjee Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chunnilal Agarwal Vs State Bank of India Rep by Branch Manager and Ors.

Krishna Ghosh Vs Nita Dey and Anr.