AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this original petition filed by the plaintiffs, Ext.P9 impugned order passed on I.A.No.1858/2020 in O.S.No.389/2018 is challenged.
The respondents/defendants filed I.A.No. 1858/2020 seeking remittal of commission report and plan already submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, for the purpose of ascertaining a few more matters. The court below allowed the application ordering remittal of the report and plan, despite the fact that the plaintiffs objected to the same.
The contentions raised in I.A.No.1858/2020 by the defendants is that the Commissioner omitted to mark the encroached portion in the alleged possession of plaintiffs in the plan and further, there was failure on the part of the Commissioner to note down the reconstruction of the building effected in the suit property.
The plaintiffs filed a counter contending that the plan prepared was factually correct and did not suffer from any lapse or omissions.
The impugned order shows that the court below mechanically allowed the application without looking into the contentions raised by the parties. The court below in the nature of contentions raised before it, ought to have passed a speaking order. Non passing of a speaking order has vitiated the impugned order.
Looking at the order, I am satisfied that it suffers from serious infirmity and illegality. I am of the view that the court below has to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing parties and in accordance with law. I find my way difficult to sustain the impugned order.
In the result, the original petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. The court below shall hear the parties and reconsider I.A.No.1858/2020 in accordance with law. It is made clear that I have not expressed any view on merits of the case. The court below may take all the efforts to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.