Ramakant Prasad v. Ali Ahmad Ansari,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.341 of 2021 ====================================================== Ramakant Prasad S/o Late Shivji Prasad, R/o Sarkar Bazar, P.S. - Ramgadhwa, East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

Ali Ahmad Ansari, S/o Late Habib Ansari @ Habib Miya, R/o Chotki Pakhania, P.S. - Palnawa, East Champaran. ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratanakar Jha For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Pravin Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-02-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

The plaintiff/respondent has filed a Title Suit No. 587 of 2009, claiming his title and possession over the land in dispute. The defendants/petitioners appeared and filed their written statement claiming their title and possession over the disputed land. During pendency of the suit a petition for appointment of pleader commissioner was filed in the year 2017 by the defendants/petitioners for ascertaining whether the houses on the disputed land were rented or not. That petition was rejected by order dated 30.06.2017 by the learned court below. A review petition was filed on behalf of the defendants against the order dated 30.06.2017. The order dated 30.06.2017 was reviewed and again it was fixed for final hearing. Ul-

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.341 of 2021(3) dt.22-02-2022 2/2 timately vide order dated 25.03.2021, the learned trial court has rejected the petition for appointment of pleader commissioner. The learned trial court in its order dated 25.03.2021 has mentioned that it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his case and burden shifted upon his shoulder to prove his title and possession. He has also mentioned that even if that appointment of pleader commissioner is allowed it will not help the plaintiff or defendants in ascertaining their title and possession and considering these things the learned trial court has rejected the petition for appointment of pleader commissioner. The impugned order is well-reasoned and I do not think any reason to interfere with the order.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U