The Gauhati High Court dismissed an application under Article 227 challenging the trial court's order refusing a local investigation commission in a property suit.
Application under Article 227 dismissed as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010033212022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/37/2022
RINA BHATTACHARYYA AND 2 ORS.
W/O- LATE PRABIN KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA, R/O- WARD NO. 4, BIHPURIA TOWN, MOUZA AND PS. BIHPURIA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
2: PABITRA PRAN BHATTACHARYYA @ PRAN BHATTACHARYYA S/O- LATE PRABIN KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA R/O- WARD NO. 4 BIHPURIA TOWN MOUZA AND PS. BIHPURIA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER.
3: SUNIL BHATTACHARYYA S/O- LATE PREMANANDA BHATTACHARYYA R/O- WARD NO. 14 KHELMATI MOUZA- LAKHIMPUR P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSA
VERSUS
TILESWAR BHUYAN
S/O- LATE BONGSHI BHUYAN, R/O- NIZ-SINATOLI, MOUZA- NAKARI, P.O. KHELMATI, P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN787031.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER
16.03.2022
Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel representing the petitioners.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur in Title Suit No. 15/2017 is put to challenge.
The petitioners filed a suit against the respondent seeking a decree of declaration of their right, title and interest over a plot of land measuring 3 kathas 18 lechas out of 6 bighas 4 kathas of land and for recovery of vacant possession of the same by evicting the respondent therefrom. The respondent contested the case by filing written statement.
After framing of issues both sides examined witnesses as well as documents etc. and the case reached the stage of argument. At that time, the petitioners filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a local investigation of the suit land. The trial court refused to issue a Commission on the ground that the evidence available in the record is sufficient for disposal of the suit.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
A regular appeal and an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are two different provisions. The constitutional provision is supervisory in nature. High Court is not supposed to hear an appeal in the guise of this constitutional provision. It is a settled law that even for some minor defects in an order passed by subordinate courts and tribunals, the power under Section 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by the High Court.
Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC provides that if a court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or of ascertaining the market value of any property or the amount of any mesne profit or damages or annual net profits, then only a Commission for local investigation may be issued. The satisfaction of the court is the main point here. The learned trial court has held that the evidence and the pleadings available in the
Page No.# 3/3
record are sufficient to adjudicate the dispute and no Commission for local investigation is necessary. This court finds that the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 is a reasoned order.
There is no perversity or defect in the impugned order and, therefore, this court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the trial court's refusal to issue a local investigation commission.
Whether the trial court's reasoned order finding evidence sufficient without local investigation warrants correction under Article 227.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Rina Bhattacharyya and 2 Ors.
Tileswar Bhuyan
Parthivjyoti Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
