Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 657 (JHR)

Shanti Sen v. State of Jharkhand

2008-06-30

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat in Execution Case No.3 of 2005, which arose out of Title Suit No.4 of 2002. 2. It has been submitted that the Pleader Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the land which was the subject matter of the said suit. The Pleader Commissioner ascertained and submitted a report. The petitioner has filed an objection to that report. By the impugned order, objection of the petitioner has been overruled and the court has directed for execution and delivery of possession. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the delivery of possession is not being given in accordance with the description of the suit property. The Pleader Commissioner has not properly ascertained the land in question. The first decimal of the plot from the North should have been the suit property but the Pleader Commissioner has taken the second decimal of the land is disputed plot. Learned court below without properly appreciating the said fact, has overruled the petitioner's objection and has allowed execution to proceed for effecting delivery of possession. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have contested the petition stating, inter alia, that the petitioner's petition is frivolous and malicious, and is intended to cause unnecessary delay in execution of the decree and delivery of possession The decree has been passed in favour of the said respondents and they are entitled to get the fruit of the decree. There is no vagueness or error in the report of the Pleader Commissioner and in the said property there is no description like first decimal, second decimal or so on. 5. The area of the Plot No. 312 is four decimal, out of that one decimal has been specifically shown as suit land with the boundary in which the petitioner is in the south. The delivery of the possession is to be effected over the land measuring one decimal, which is just adjacent north to the petitioner. Learned court below has considered all the aspects, materials and evidences on record and has rightly rejected the frivolous objection of the petitioner. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. Learned court below has considered all the aspects, materials and evidences on record and has rightly rejected the frivolous objection of the petitioner. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. The suit land has been described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint as also in the decree. In the boundary of Schedule 'B' the petitioner has been shown in South. Admittedly, the delivery of possession is to be effected on the land, which is adjacent North to the petitioner. 7. Learned court below after due discussion and consideration has come to the conclusion that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 4 of 2002 is to be executed on the basis of the report submitted by the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. 8. I find no error and infirmity warranting any interference of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.