Jharkhand High Court
Md Aslam And Anr vs Hadi Mian And Ors on 14 September, 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3817 of 2015
1. Md. Aslam
2. Aga Arshad
Both S/o Late Md. Hasim, R/O MohallaAsanbani, P.SGodda
Town, P.OGodda, DistrictGodda
... ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Hadi Mian, S/o Late Ali Hassan
2. Nessar Ansari
3. Bablu Ansari
4. Munna Ansari
5. Jawed Ansari
6. Tanwir Ansari
7. Oranjeb Ansari
27 S/o Hadi Mian
8. Aarif Ansari, S/o Late Ali Hassan
9. Pappu Ansari
10. Hemayul Ansari
11. Ehsanul Ansari
12. Sanaul Ansari
13. Ataul Ansari
913 S/0 Aarif Ansari
14. Shamshad Ansari,
15. Noushad Ansari
16. Quasim Ansari
17. Hatim Ansari
1417 S/o Late Waship Ansari
All R/o MohallaAsanbani, P.SGodda Town, P.OGodda,
DistrictGodda. ... ... ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K.Verma
For the Respondents:
02/14.09.2015Aggrieved by order dated 09.07.2015 passed in Title Suit No. 06/2013, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 06/2013. The suit was filed for a declaration of the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land and also for a declaration that the defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit land. The immediate cause for instituting Title Suit No. 06/2013 was 2 the alleged illegal trespass by the defendants on 24.03.2013 by demolishing the southern wall, which opened the doors of the shops facing towards the open space belonging to the plaintiffs. In the pending suit, application dated 08.08.2013 was filed for appointment of a Pleader CommissionerAmin for measuring the suit property.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners summits that it appears from the materials on record that all three plots involved in Title Suit No. 06/2013 were not measured by the Pleader Commissioner. The measurement was taken by the Amin appointed by the defendants and therefore, an application was filed for measurement of the suit land, afresh.
4. It appears that initially the date of measurement was fixed on 20.07.2014 and with the consent of the parties it was adjourned for 27.07.2014. Before submission of the report, the plaintiff filed an application apprehending that a wrong report may be submitted by the Amin. The Trial Court has noticed that the Amin, who prepared the report, has not yet been examined as a witness. The Trial Court observed that during the crossexamination of Amin, the plaintiffs may get an opportunity to establish the objections to the report submitted by the Amin. As noticed above, the suit was filed for a declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The report of the Amin is a piece of evidence, which can be taken note by the Trial Court at the time of final hearing of the suit. The plaintiffs for establishing their right, title and interest over the suit property are required to produce independent evidence to prove their case.
5. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Satish/ (Shree Chandrashekhar, J)