Hari Priya Dass v. Anjali Bala Dass And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
CO/18/2022 Hari Priya Dass ... Revisionist Vs.
Anjali Bala Dass and others.
... Respondents Mr. N. Lokesh Chezian ... for the revisionist August 17, 2022 [SR] Item No.1 The revisionist has filed the instant application against an order dated 21st April, 2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Port Blair. The revisionist is the defendant no.2 in the Title Suit No.108 of 2016 instituted by the plaintiffs. By the order impugned, learned Court appointed a local Inspection Commissioner for holding inspection on the suit property on the dispute raised by the plaintiffs and the defendant no.2.
The dispute is with regard to the prayer of the plaintiffs for an electricity connection. The order records that the plaintiffs were refused an electric connection on the ground that the main electric pole is lying in the suit property which is the subject matter of an order of status quo passed by the learned Court below. The order further records that the defendant no.2 (revisionist) claims that the electricity pole was not lying within the suit property.
The contention of learned counsel appearing for the revisionist/defendant no.2 is that the Court could not have appointed the local Inspection Commissioner since the application of the plaintiffs indicates that the survey No.295 which is not part of the suit property. Counsel relies the Order 39 Rule 7 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1903 in this connection. According to counsel, an order for inspection can only be made on the prayer which is the subject matter of suit, which was not the case before learned Court below. Upon hearing learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division appointing a local Inspection Commissioner does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal.
The revisionist was represented at the time of passing of the order and could very well have brought the issue, which is now being raised before this Court, to the notice of the Civil Judge Senior Division. The order succinctly records the contrary position taken by the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff on the location of the electric pole. Since a dispute was evident location, the learned Court deemed it fit to appoint local Inspection Commissioner to ascertain the correctness of the contentions of the parties. Thus, learned Court cannot be faulted on the decision to appoint a local Inspection Commissioner. There is hence no ground made out for interfering with the order dated 21st April, 2022.
The contention that the plaintiffs have not taken any steps with regard to appointment of the Commissioner, shall be looked into by the learned Court on the returnable date which shall be fixed within four weeks from date, if not already done. The revisionist shall be at liberty to mention the matter before the Court to expedite the proceedings. CO/18/2022 is disposed of in the terms of the order. ( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. )