CO/3273/2026 of SUDIP KHAMRAI Vs PARTHASARATHI MAJHI AND OTHERS on 21 September 2026

Sl.29 21.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3273 of 2026

Sri Sudip Khamrai -versus- Sri Parthasarathi Majhi & Ors.

Ms. Shohini Chakraborty Ms. Prajaaini Das .. for the petitioner

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being no. 103 dated May 5, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No. 25 of 2015. By the order impugned the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for appointment of a survey passed commissioner for holding investigation on the points as mentioned in the applications stood rejected. Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application under 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected only on the ground that previously commissioners were appointed on applications under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure on two occasions and the commissioners have submitted a report. She further submits that the scope of local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil

Procedure and local verification under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure are entirely different. The petitioner has prayed for declaration of his easementary right and for mandatory injunction for removal of certain steps, structures, gate from a particular portion of the suit property which has been mentioned in prayer ‘ga’ of the plaint. In the hand sketch map appended to the plaint the strips namely A+S+A1+A2 has been specifically described. After going through the local inspection report, the field note and the hand sketch map this Court finds that the learned trial judge was right in holding that the existence of A, A1 and A2 strip transpires from the said report of the Commissioner Mr. Deboprasad Maity. The learned trial judge further recorded that the fact that the strip portions are not an open path and the same is blocked by one Hari Mancha, stair and a heap of sand. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the learned trial judge was right in not allowing the application for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the point on which such local investigation was sought for are not necessary for the purpose of proving the easementary right of the petitioner which has to be done by way of oral and documentary evidence. With the above observations, C.O. 3273 of 2026 stands disposed of.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)