AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
24 paragraphs · 539 wordsThe present petition has been filed “for setting aside the part of order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Motihari, East
Champaran, in Title Suit No. 149 of 2001 whereby the petition dated 02.09.2019 filed by the plaintifffs/petitioners for issuance of writ to the survey
knowing pleader commissioner in view of order dated 22.07.2008, has been rejected.â€
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners submits that the present suit has been filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the
suit land from which they have been dispossessed by the defendants/respondents who have encroached upon the said land. It is submitted that the
original plaintiff no. 1, namely, Hari Shankar Sah during his lifetime filed a petition for appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner which
was allowed but further steps could not be taken before his death. Accordingly, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff no. 1 were substituted as
petitioner nos. 1 to 4. Upon coming to know about the previous order of appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner, the fee in this regard
was deposited on 12.04.2013, consequent upon which the learned District Judge appointed Sri Bipin Bihari Tiwary as survey knowing pleader
commissioner. It is the case of the petitioners that writ along with requisites for being handed over to the survey knowing pleader commissioner was
filed on 05.07.2014 but the same was kept on record and never came to be issued. It is submitted that the learned court below ought not to have
rejected the petitioners’ application for issuance of writ to the survey knowing pleader commissioner for demarcation of land inasmuch as a report
in that behalf was necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 discloses the facts in their proper perspective. It has been stated that the petitioners claim to have
filed the writ and requisites on 05.07.2014 but there was nothing on record to substantiate such claim nor any ordersheet was found written in that
regard. No doubt, some documents had been filed on 05.07.2014 as enumerated. It is also observed that writ and requisites are available on record but
the same neither bear the stamp of court nor any date of filing is mentioned over the documents. The learned court below has further expressed the
view that even though the application of the plaintiff for appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner was allowed in the year 2008, no steps
were taken till 2013. It has therefore been found that the plaintiff had not shown any eagerness for appointment of survey knowing pleader
commissioner nor desired to proceed for measurement of the suit land.
It is well settled that this Court does not sit in appeal over the impugned order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the scope whereof is primarily only to ensure that the learned Court below acts within the bounds of its authority. No jurisdictional error in the
impugned order has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.
