Disposed¶35

Renu Choubey v. Ritesh Abhinav

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2025C.M.P./497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Renu Choubey v. Ritesh Abhinav and others; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; C.M.P. No. 497 of 2025; decided 15.09.2025 by Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary; Article 227 Constitution; quashing of order dated 18.03.2025; Misc. Civil Application No.01/2025; Original Suit No.275/2021; Pleader Commissioner; Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC; Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC; status quo order 3.10.2023; impleadment 24.01.2024; Sale Deed No.5259 dated 16.09.2019; Lalan Choubey; Dhanbad; petition disposed of with liberty to object before Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner left at liberty to raise objections to the Pleader Commissioner's report before the Trial Court; pending I.A., if any, also disposed of. ¶35

Renu Choubey Vs Ritesh Abhinav — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner left at liberty to raise objections to the Pleader Commissioner's report before the Trial Court; pending I.A., if any, also disposed of.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether appointment of a Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC was warranted at the interlocutory stage of the suit, before adjudication of the plaintiffs' temporary injunction petition, and what recourse the petitioner has against the Commissioner's report.

¶33

Court's answer

The main object of a Pleader Commissioner appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is to enable the Court to properly and effectively appreciate the evidence with regard to local conditions, physical features, measures, boundaries, possessions, identification of property, or extent of encroachment which cannot be conveniently proved by oral or documentary evidence alone; the Commissioner acts as an officer of the Court ensuring impartial fact-finding.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Onus lies on the plaintiffs to lead evidence to prove the asserted facts on which their relief is founded; a Pleader Commissioner's report cannot act as a substitute for the evidence to be led by the plaintiffs, and therefore appointing a Pleader Commissioner at a stage when even the temporary injunction petition was not allowed is rather strange.

¶33

Key takeaways

Since the Pleader Commissioner's report has already been submitted and counsel for the petitioner/defendant has serious objection to it, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the objection before the Trial Court; with this observation, the Civil Misc. Petition stands disposed of.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the Trial Court's order dated 18.03.2025 in Misc. Civil Application No.01/2025 (arising out of Original Suit No.275/2021, a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction), whereby a petition for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed. The petitioner, impleaded as defendant no.10 on her intervenor application vide order dated 24.01.2024 (after the status quo order of 3.10.2023), claimed title through registered Sale Deed No.5259 dated 16.09.2019 from Lalan Choubey, duly mutated in her name. The Court observed that a status quo order had been passed despite the Trial Court finding no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Holding that a Pleader Commissioner serves to impartially ascertain facts (local conditions, boundaries, possessions, extent of encroachment) incapable of convenient proof by oral or documentary evidence, the Court held that the onus of proof lies on the plaintiffs and the Commissioner's report cannot substitute their evidence, making the appointment at that stage 'rather strange'. Since the report had already been submitted, the Court disposed of the petition while leaving the petitioner at liberty to raise objections to the report before the Trial Court.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C. M. P. No. 497 of 2025

¶3

¶4

Renu Choubey, W/o Sri Rajiv Ranjan Choubey, R/o Opposite Happy Child School, Jharudih, Near Forest Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.Dhanbad, Jharkhand … …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ritesh Abhinav, S/o Late Vijay Kumar Sharma, R/o at Jharudih, P.O.& P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶7

Jatan Gope, S/o Late Kailash Gope, R/o at Jharudih Near Carmel School, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad

¶8

Naresh Gope, S/o Late Mohan Gope, R/o at Baramuri Near New Primary School, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶9

Bhola Gope, S/o Late Bachan Gope, R/o Jharudih, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶10

Dhananjay Gope, S/o Late Bachan Gope, R/o Jharudih, P.O. & P.S.Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶11

Dinesh Singh, S/o Late Ram Prasad Singh, R/o Raja Colliery, Nirsa, P.O. & P.S.-Nirsa, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶12

Rohit Kumar Yadav, S/o Sri Bandhu Yadav, R/o Rangatand Near Shankar Mall, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad at, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶14

The Land Reforms Development Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶15

10.The Circle Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶16

11.Union of India through General Manager G.M. Office East Central Railway Hajipur, P.O. & P.S.-Hajipur, Dist.-Vaishali, Bihar

¶17

12.D.R.M., Dhanbad office at -DRM Office, East Central Railway, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand … …. Opp. Parties

¶18

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶20

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the U.O.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, C.G.C. For the State : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate -----

¶21

Oral Order

¶22

10 / Dated : 15.09.2025

¶23

Petitioner is the Defendant No.10 in Original Suit No.275/2021 and instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.01/2025 arising out of Original Suit

¶24

2025:JHHC:28245

¶25

No.275/2021, by which the petition for appointment of Pleader Commissioner filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. has been allowed.

¶26

Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and granting permanent injunction against defendants. The present petitioner was impleaded as defendant no.10 on her intervenor application. On the petition filed by the plaintiff an order of status quo was passed on 3.10.2023. Defendant moved the Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for violating status quo order by making construction over the suit property which has been allowed. Aggrieved by which, the present petition has been filed.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that she was impleaded in the suit vide order dated 24.01.2024, whereas the said order of status quo was passed on 03.10.2023 before her impleadment. Petitioner claims to have acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit land by registered Sale Deed No.5259 dated 16.09.2019 from Lalan Choubey and after the said purchase, it has been duly mutated in her name.

¶28

On perusal of order of status quo, it is apparent that the learned Trial Court noted that there was no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff so as to allow the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. It, however, ordered status quo with regard to the suit land.

¶29

Having gone through the plaint, it is apparent that in the schedule of the plaint, the description of the suit land as well as its boundaries has been given.

¶30

The main object of a Pleader Commissioner appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. is to enable the Court to properly and effectively appreciate the evidence with regard to local conditions, physical features, measures, boundaries, possessions, identification of property, or extent of encroachment which cannot be conveniently proved by oral or document evidence alone. When such facts are in dispute then a Pleader Commissioner is appointed who acts as an officer of the Court, ensuring impartial fact finding which reduces conflicting or exaggerated oral evidence from the parties.

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:28245

¶33

Here in the present case, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for a definite relief with respect to the suit land detailed in the plaint. Onus lies on the plaintiffs to lead evidence to prove the asserted facts on which the relief is founded. The Pleader Commissioner’s report cannot act as a substitute for the evidence to be led by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the very object of appointing Pleader Commissioner at this stage when even a temporary injunction petition was not allowed, is rather strange.

¶34

Be that as it may, as submitted by counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the report has already been submitted and he has serious objection to that, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the objection before the Trial Court.

¶35

With the above observation, this Civil Misc. Petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶37

15^th September, 2025 AKT/Satyendra

¶38

Renu Choubey v. Ritesh Abhinav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Choubey v. Ritesh Abhinav

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

Similar cases

Dharamraj Singh Vs Ram Pravesh Singh

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neelam Kumari Vs Nehal Khan

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Represented through Its Sr Divisional Manager Vs Shakuna Devi and Ors.

Rajesh Kant Sinha Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal

Upendra Nath Mishra Vs Smt Nandni Singh