The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that, in the absence of clear boundaries or sufficient description of the disputed property in the pleadings, an order for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC cannot be granted. This judgment upholds existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts dealing with property disputes and applications for local investigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| CNR | WBCHCA0408012025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Order 26 Rule 9 CPC), Property Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether local investigation can be ordered under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC without sufficient description or boundaries of the disputed property in the plaint. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The application for local investigation was rightly rejected as the plaint did not contain a specific description or boundaries of the alleged encroached portion. Without such particulars, a Commissioner cannot properly execute a local investigation. The learned trial judge’s decision not to appoint a Commissioner was based on sound reasoning and does not warrant interference under Article 227. The judgment clarifies the necessity of clear pleadings when seeking relief under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession regarding the A schedule property, with allegations of encroachment in the B schedule portion. The B schedule was described only by measurement, lacking boundary particulars or a sketch map. Reliefs sought included removal of an electric meter and boundary wall from the B schedule property. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts addressing similar procedural issues under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC cannot be directed where the plaint lacks sufficient details—especially boundaries or a sketch map—of the disputed or encroached property.
- Mere mention of area or measurement is insufficient; boundaries or clear identification are essential for appointing a Commissioner.
- Lawyers should ensure that pleadings in property disputes seeking local investigation expressly contain detailed descriptions or maps of the encroached portion.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed the order of the trial judge refusing the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for local investigation.
- The learned trial judge noted that the B schedule property, alleged to be encroached, was described only by measurement (59 square feet on the western side of the A schedule), without specifying boundaries or providing a sketch map.
- The absence of detailed description or boundaries would prevent the Commissioner from properly conducting investigation or demarcating the disputed portion.
- The trial judge assigned cogent reasons, and the High Court found no warrant to interfere under Article 227.
- Thus, the High Court dismissed the revisional application, confirming that clear pleadings are a precondition for appointing a Commissioner for local investigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Opposite parties have encroached upon a portion of the A schedule property, specifically described as the B schedule in the plaint.
- Local investigation is necessary to identify and ascertain the encroached portion.
Respondent
Not detailed in the judgment.
Factual Background
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title to the A schedule property and recovery of possession, alleging that the defendant encroached on the B schedule portion. The plaint described the B schedule only in terms of its area (59 square feet on the western side of A schedule) but did not provide boundaries or a sketch map. Reliefs sought included mandatory injunction for removal of an electric meter and a boundary wall from the B schedule property. The trial court rejected the application for local investigation, which was challenged under Article 227.
Statutory Analysis
The court interpreted Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, which empowers courts to appoint a Commissioner for local investigation. The court clarified that such powers should only be exercised where the disputed property is clearly identified with boundaries or a sketch map, as otherwise the investigation cannot be effectively executed. The lack of description in the plaint precludes appointment of a Commissioner.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents, changes in evidence or burden of proof, or sui motu directions were recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law reaffirmed regarding preconditions for appointing a Commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.
Citations
No specific law report, SCC, AIR, or neutral citations provided in the judgment.