This single-judge oral order disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the rejection of an application for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner in a title suit involving encroachment allegations by the police department. The bench found no error in the lower court's order and dismissed the writ application.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4933 of 2012
======================================================
Versus
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mallika Mazumdar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : …………………..
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
3 12-10-2012 Heard Ms. Mallika Mazumdar, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4933 of 2012 (3) dt.12-10-2012
2 / 3
petitioners.
This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the order dated 4.6.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 2004 by learned Sub Judge V, Buxar whereby the prayer of the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking appointment of a Pleader Commissioner, has been rejected.
The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffspetitioners for declaration of their title and possession over Schedule III land and for confirmation of their possession over the suit property as also seeking recovery of the possession thereof, in case the plaintiffs are found to be out of possession during the course of trial.
It is the allegation of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the proceedings certain constructions were being made by the defendant authorities of the State of Bihar in its Police Department and for which an injunction application was filed and which has been rejected. It is in view of the constructions being made by the Police Department, that the application in question was filed by the petitioners on 27.1.2009 for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for verification of the encroachment allegedly being made by the Police Department.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4933 of 2012 (3) dt.12-10-2012
3 / 3
Perusal of the order impugned manifests that the prayer of the petitioners has been rejected inter alia on grounds that by appointment of the Pleader Commissioner the petitioners were trying to gather evidence through the process of the Court for establishment of their claim and which has to be done by the plaintiff on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.
No error or infirmity can be found in the order passed by the learned Court below and this writ application is accordingly disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Bibhash/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an error or infirmity exists in the order rejecting the application for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to gather evidence through the court process for establishing their claim overSchedule III land.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Manorama Joshi and others
The State of Bihar and others
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
