Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 40 (ORI)

Sitaram Nayak v. Usharani Das

2003-01-17

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2003
ORDER 17.1.2003. — Heard. 2. This Civil Revision is taken up out of turn on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and stands disposed of because of the following reasons. 3. Petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C. for demarcation of the land through the Court Amin and that has been rejected by the learned Court below, inter alia, on the ground that the suit has been targetted by the High Court to be disposed of within a time frame. On being asked, Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in Civil Revision No. 3 of 2002 this Court issued a direction for disposal of the suit by the end of January, 2003. He also produces xerox copy of that order for perusal of this Court. It is seen from that order that it is at the instance of the present petitioner that such a target has been fixed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to and relying on the case of Mahendranath Parida v. Purnananda Parida and others, 64 (1987) C.L.T. 722, states that in view of the ratio laid down by this Court the application of the petitioner should have been allowed. I do not find any convincing reason in that argument. In this case when the dispute is relating to the boundary and evidence can be secured by the petitioner by employ¬ing the Tahsil Court Amin for which an application under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. is not necessary, therefore, deputing the Amin Commissioner from the Civil Court is not a sine qua non in all the cases for collection of evidence to render substantial jus¬tice to the parties. On the other hand, experience shows that such a device is always contributed to delay in disposal of the proceeding. It is the settled principle of law propounded by the Apex Court as well as by this Court that a Court should not be the means to collect evidence for a particular party. When the petitioner can get the requisite evidence by getting the area demarcated either by private Amin or by Tahsil Court Amin and the Tahsil Court Amin shall not have the difficulty to enter into a private premises for the purpose of demarcation, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly the Civil Revision stands dismissed. 5. 5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the suit has been targetted, therefore, it shall take some time for the petitioner to get the area demarcat¬ed through the Tahasil Court’s Amin and therefore, the trial Court may be directed to consider that aspect. Considering that submission, it is observed that if the petitioner shall apply for demarcation of boundary by the Tahsil Court’s Amin, within a period of two weeks and shall apply in Civil Revision No. 3 of 2002 for extension of time for disposal of the civil suit and if that extension shall be granted by the Court, then learned trial Court shall grant due indulgence to the petitioner for producing such evidence at the stage of hearing of the suit. Civil Revision dismissed.