Dismissed¶25

Gagan Bihari Das v. Sasadhar Das

Orissa HC20 Jun 2024CMP/352/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court CMP 352 of 2024 — Civil Court Commissioner's report accepted by trial Court despite defendants' objection; objection held evasive/omnibus, no specific plea of illegality or impropriety; cross-examination of Commissioner yielded nothing; measurement followed due procedure; refusal to interfere; CMP dismissed with direction for early disposal of TS No.213 of 2001 (Kendrapara). Keywords: commissioner report objection, omnibus objection, cross-examination of commissioner, expeditious disposal, old suit.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the Petitioners; the CMP was dismissed, with a direction to the learned trial Court to make all endeavours to dispose of the suit of the year 2001 at an early date in accordance with law. ¶25

Gagan Bihari Das Vs Sasadhar Das — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 10th July, 2023 rejecting the Defendants-Petitioners' objection to the Civil Court Commissioner's report is vitiated for non-consideration of the objection and liable to be set aside.

¶21

Court's answer

The Petitioners' objection to the Civil Court Commissioner's report was evasive and omnibus, taking no specific ground of illegality or impropriety committed by the Commissioner during field verification or in the report.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioners were given an opportunity to cross-examine the Civil Court Commissioner, but nothing could be elicited from him to justify rejection of his report.

¶23

Key takeaways

On perusal of the Commissioner's report (Annexure-3), the Civil Court Commissioner had followed due procedure of law while making measurement of the land.ratio¶23
The Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the objection to the Commissioner's report.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMP dismissed (K.R. Mohapatra J., 20.06.2024): Challenge to order dated 10th July, 2023 of the learned Civil Judge, LR and LTV, Kendrapara in TS No.213 of 2001 (suit of 2001 for declaration of joint right, title and interest, confirmation and recovery of possession and permanent injunction), whereby the Defendants' objection to acceptance of the Civil Court Commissioner's report (submitted 18.05.2013) was rejected. Held: the objection was evasive and omnibus, raising no specific ground of illegality or impropriety in the field verification or the report; the Petitioners, though given opportunity to cross-examine the Commissioner, elicited nothing to warrant rejection; the Commissioner had followed due procedure of law in measuring the land. High Court declined to interfere; trial Court directed to expedite disposal of the long-pending suit.

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 21-Jun-2024 14:13:30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

CMP NO.352 OF 2024

¶4

Gagan Bihari Das and others

¶5

…. Petitioners

¶6

Mr. Prafulla Chandra Acharya, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Sasadhar Das …. Opp. Party

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

20.06.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Order dated 10^th July, 2023 (Annexure-4 Series) passed by learned Civil Judge, LR and LTV, Kendrapara passed in TS No.213 of 2001 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an objection raised by the Defendants to the acceptance of the Commissioner’s report, has been rejected.

¶17

Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the suit is for declaration of joint right, title and interest of the Plaintiff and PROFORMA Defendant No.4 as well as for confirmation of possession in respect of the suit plot, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. By order of learned trial Court, a Commissioner was appointed to measure the land and submitted its report. The Civil Court Commissioner’s report was submitted on 18^th May, 2013. As the Civil Court Commissioner’s report was not in accordance with law, the Defendants filed an objection under Annexure-4 Series not to accept the same and prayed for deputation of a fresh Civil Court Commissioner for measurement of the land. Learned trial Court, without considering the matter in its proper perspective, rejected the

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 21-Jun-2024 14:13:30

¶20

objection and accepted the report of the Civil Court Commissioner vide order dated 10^th July, 2023, which is impugned herein.

¶21

It is his submission that the objection raised by the Defendants-Petitioners was not at all taken into consideration at the time of adjudication. Thus, the impugned order under Annexure-4 series is vitiated for non-consideration of the objection raised by the Petitioners and is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Upon hearing Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of record, more particularly, the objections raised by the Petitioners to the Civil Court Commissioner’s report, it appears that it is an evasive one and no specific ground was taken in the objection with regard to any illegality or impropriety, if any caused by the Civil Court Commissioner while making field verification and submitting the report. The Petitioners have only raised omnibus objections without stating irregularity, if any, specifically in the Commissioner’s report.

¶23

Further, it appears from the impugned order that the Petitioners were given an opportunity to cross-examine the Civil Court Commissioner. But, nothing could be elicited from the Civil Commissioner to reject the report submitted by him. On perusal of the Civil Court Commissioner’s report at Annexure-3, this Court finds that the Civil Court Commissioner has followed due procedure of law while making measurement of the land.

¶24

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶25

This CMP stands dismissed accordingly.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 21-Jun-2024 14:13:30

¶28

Since the suit is of the year 2001, learned trial Court should make all endeavours to see that it is disposed of at an early date in accordance with law.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶30

Rojalin

¶31

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Gagan Bihari Das v. Sasadhar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagan Bihari Das v. Sasadhar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrika Priyadarshini Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Laxmi Saw Mill, Jajpur Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Sankar Saw Mill, Jajpur Vs State of Odisha

Mantosh Pradhan Vs Jagannath Behera

Subash Chandra Das Vs Mami Pati

Gourahari Suna Vs Jangyaseni Suna