Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1243 (JHR)

Jai Sia Ram Mishra v. Chandrama Mishra

2018-06-14

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 07.08.2015 passed in Title (P) Suit No.22 of 1988. 2. Title (P) Suit No.22 of 1988 was instituted by the petitioner for a decree for partition to the extent of half share in the suit properties. The suit was decreed holding that the plaintiff as well as the defendants are entitled for half share in the suit properties. Judgment and decree passed in Title (P) Suit No.22 of 1988 were affirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No.170 of 2008, however, the final decree was set-aside by the first appellate court in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2009 and the matter was remanded to the trial court for preparation of final decree after hearing objection of the parties. Pursuant to the judgment in Title Appeal No.13 of 2009, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed who gave his report on 13.11.2006. 3. Contending that on an erroneous assumption that the defendant was not present at the time of measurement, the trial Judge by the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 has rejected the Pleader Commissioner''s report, Mr. B.V. Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant was present at the time of measurement of the decreetal properties, however, he had refused to sign the report. 4. Be that as it may, the trial Judge in its order dated 07.08.2015 has found that by not allotting any land towards south facing the road to the defendants and allotment of entire land on that side to the plaintiff does not appear to be just and equitable and it would become impossible for the defendants to access portion of the suit properties situated on the other side. The trial Judge, after an elaborate discussion which takes note of objection of the parties, has directed appointment of a new Pleader Commissioner for partition of the decreetal properties by meets and bounds for preparation of final decree. 5. In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. The trial Judge shall proceed in the matter expeditiously, in accordance with law and a fresh report by the Pleader Commissioner if already has not been received, it shall issue necessary directions in this regard.