Bombay High Court Allows Fresh Measurement of Suit Land in Recovery of Possession Suit — Trial Court's Rejection of Commissioner Application Set Aside for Lack of Reasons. The Court directed appointment of a Court Commissioner for fresh measurement and map drawing under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 124
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, original defendants in RCS No.361/2009, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 21/01/2014 passed by the Trial Court rejecting their application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for fresh measurement of the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of possession of encroached land. Earlier, a T.I.L.R. had carried out measurement on 18/08/2009 and drawn a map, which was placed on record. The plaintiffs evidence was closed and the defendants were to step into the witness box. The defendants had cross-examined the T.I.L.R. on his measurement report and map. On 11/09/2013, the defendants filed an application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for fresh measurement and map drawing. The respondent opposed it. The Trial Court rejected the application by a cryptic order without assigning reasons. The High Court, relying on several judgments including Bento Antonio Gomes v. Rosario Salvador Carneiro, held that the impugned order was non-reasoned and set it aside. The High Court directed the Trial Court to appoint a Court Commissioner for fresh measurement and map drawing, with the costs to be borne by the petitioners. The writ petition was allowed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appointment of Court Commissioner - Order 26 Rule 9 CPC - Fresh Measurement - The Trial Court rejected the defendants' application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for fresh measurement of the suit property without assigning any reasons. The High Court held that the impugned order was cryptic and non-reasoned, and set it aside, directing the Trial Court to appoint a Court Commissioner for fresh measurement and map drawing. (Paras 1-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the defendants' application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for fresh measurement of the suit property without assigning any reasons.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order dated 21/01/2014 is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to appoint a Court Commissioner for carrying out fresh measurement of the suit property and drawing a map. The costs of the Commissioner shall be borne by the petitioners. The writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Order 26 Rule 9 CPC
  • Court Commissioner
  • Fresh Measurement
  • Cryptic Order
  • Reasoned Order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 16

Writ Petition No.3581 of 2014

2014-09-02

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Mr.S.B.Kadu for petitioners, Mr.P.S.Dighe for respondent

Appasaheb S/o Karbhari Pandagale, Manojkumar S/o Karbhari Pandagale, Dattatraya S/o Karbhari Pandagale

Lahanu Ramchandra Cholke

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging rejection of application for appointment of Court Commissioner for fresh measurement of suit property in a recovery of possession suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners (original defendants) sought quashing of Trial Court order dated 21/01/2014 and appointment of Court Commissioner for fresh measurement and map drawing.

Filing Reason

Trial Court rejected petitioners' application for fresh measurement without assigning reasons.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court rejected application dated 11/09/2013 by order dated 21/01/2014.

Issues

Whether the Trial Court's order rejecting the application for appointment of Court Commissioner was cryptic and non-reasoned. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a fresh measurement of the suit property.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the impugned order does not reflect any reasons and is cryptic. Respondent opposed the application for fresh measurement.

Ratio Decidendi

An order rejecting an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner must be a reasoned order; a cryptic order without reasons is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned order does not reflect any reasons. The same is a cryptic order. The Trial Court has failed to apply its mind to the application filed by the petitioners.

Procedural History

RCS No.361/2009 filed by respondent/plaintiff for recovery of possession. T.I.L.R. measured suit land on 18/08/2009 and drew map. Plaintiffs evidence closed. Defendants filed application on 11/09/2013 for fresh measurement. Respondent opposed on 28/10/2013. Trial Court rejected application on 21/01/2014. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3581/2014.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 26 Rule 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Interest on Delayed Refund of Pre-deposit in Customs Appeal — Pre-deposit Amounts Refundable with Interest from Date of Deposit When Appeal Succeeds. The Court held that pre-deposit made under Section 112 of Customs Act, 19...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Fresh Measurement of Suit Land in Recovery of Possession Suit — Trial Court's Rejection of Commissioner Application Set Aside for Lack of Reasons. The Court directed appointment of a Court Commissioner for fresh measurement...