AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
The first defendant in a suit for specific performance of contract has challenged, in the present revisional application, an order appointing a commissioner to hold local investigation to take exact measurement of the suit property for the purpose of assessment of valuation by the collector, arising from a direction to impound the relevant agreement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it was beyond the capacity of an ordinary advocate commissioner to take such measurement and, at least, a surveyor could have been appointed, as was prayed for by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1.
However, it appears that the impugned order records that the petition for appointment of a surveyor was allowed on contest, thereby appointing an advocate as commissioner to hold local investigation of the suit properties and to take exact measurement of the house and structure existing on the suit land after serving notice upon both sides. It is evident from the said order itself that the advocate appointed to hold such local investigation must have been a survey-passed commissioner for the court to direct him to hold a local investigation, which pre-supposes invocation of Order XXVI Rule 9, and not Order XXXIX Rule 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the advocate appointed was not a survey-passed commissioner, the same could not have been a ground of challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since for taking measurement of the house and structure, no expertise or special knowledge is necessary to necessitate the appointment of an actual surveyor.
As such, this Court finds no irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
Accordingly, C.O. No. 3218 of 2019 is dismissed without, however, any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.