Writ petition challenging a trial court order allowing appointment of a Survey knowing Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC in a suit where an Amin had already measured the land and reported as P.W.3. Court held further spot evidence unnecessary, set aside the impugned order, and directed expeditious disposal of the suit.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2024 17:27:44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 31247 OF 2011 Kailash Malik …. Petitioner Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
Muralidhara Mallik and others
…. Opp. Parties None (For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
12.03.2024
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2024 17:27:44
held that the object of local investigation is to obtain evidence, which from the peculiar nature of the case may be obtained from the spot itself. When evidence of an Amin is available on record, who after making measurement of the land on the spot submitted his report, no further evidence of a Survey knowing Commissioner is necessary. This fact was completely brushed aside by learned trial Court while adjudicating the matter. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2024 17:27:44
there was no necessity to entertain an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to seek further evidence from the spot. As such, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
ms
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Survey knowing Commissioner should be appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC when a retired Amin has already measured the suit land and his report is on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kailash Malik
Muralidhara Mallik
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
