Dismissed¶¶28

Kishan Lal Saw @ Krishna Lal Saw v. Suraj Narayan Singh

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2026C.M.P./1221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order XXVI CPC commission refused; commission cannot be issued for evidence collection for any party; survey knowing pleader commissioner; measurement and demarcation of encroachment; Title Suit No. 9 of 2011, Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-VII, Dhanbad; M.C.A. No. 153 of 2025; suit prima facie barred by limitation; C.M.P. No. 1221 of 2025 dismissed; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Rajesh Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

It is a settled principle of law that a commission cannot be issued for evidence collection for any party; the learned Court therefore rightly rejected the prayer, and the refusal was rightly done. ¶¶27

Kishan Lal Saw @ Krishna Lal Saw Vs Suraj Narayan Singh — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:2633

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

C.M.P. No. 1221 of 2025

¶4

1.Kishan Lal Saw @ Krishna Lal Saw, aged about 51 years

¶5

2.Shankar Prasad Saw, aged about 47 years

¶6

3.Jadu Nath Saw, aged about 46 years

¶7

4.Chhutu Lal Saw, aged about 44 years

¶8

5.Daluram Saw, aged about 40 years.

¶9

All sons of late Anand Mahato resident of Lakrigola Main Road, Saraidhela, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad

¶10

…....... Petitioner(s)

¶11

Vrs.

¶12

1.Suraj Narayan Singh,

¶13

2.Jiwakash Narayan Singh

¶14

Both sons of late Rameshwar Narayan Singh, resident of Lakrigola Main Road, Saraidhela, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad

¶15

.......... Defendants / Opposite Party(s)

¶16

3.Munua Devi wife of Daluram Saw and daughter of late Anand Mahato resident of Birajpur Tola Damura, P.O. & P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad 4.Shanti Devi wife of Phuchan Saw and daughter of late Anand Mahato resident of Partand, Keshka, P.O- Tundi, P.s. Tundi District Dhanbad 5.Parwati Devi wife of Ghanshyam Saw and daughter of late Anand Mahato resident of Amarbad, Harladih, P.O. Harladih, P.S. & District Giridih 6.Leela Devi wife of Ashok Mahato and daughter of late Anand Mahato, resident of Salgadih, P.O. Salgadih, P.S. & District Jamtara

¶17

.......... Plaintiffs / Proforma Opposite Party(s)

¶18

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

¶19

03/02.02.2026 The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for the following relief(s):

¶20

(i) For quashing the order dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure-5), passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-VII, Dhanbad in M.C.A. No. 153 of 2025 in connection with Title Suit NO. 9 of 2011 in terms of which the learned trial court has been pleased to dismiss a petition filed on behalf of plaintiffs under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a survey knowing pleader commissioner for measurement, information and report of the land in question;

¶21

(ii) During the pendency of this case, further proceedings of

¶22

1 C.M.P No.1221 of 2025

¶23

2026:JHHC:2633

¶24

Title Suit NO. 9 of 2011 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-VII, Dhanbad be stayed”.

¶25

There is a title suit being T.S. No. 9 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession and injuncting the Respondents.

¶26

A petition being M.C.A. No. 153 of 2025 has been filed in the said suit for demarcation to the extent of encroachment made by the other party under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been dismissed by the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-VII, Dhanbad vide order dated 02.09.2025, which is the order impugned herein.

¶27

The suit, prima facie , appears to be barred by limitation. The learned Court has rightly rejected the prayer on the plea that it is settled principle of law that a commission cannot be issued for evidence collection for any party. In such a situation, refusal of the prayer has rightly been done.

¶28