Introduction

The judgment in MANOJ KUMAR KHATRI ALIAS MANOJ KHATRI v. KUMAR ROHIT SINGH rendered by the Jharkhand High Court on January 20, 2025, addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the appointment of a pleader commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The case involves a property dispute where the petitioners, defendants in an original suit for recovery of possession of the premises based on a sale deed, sought the intervention of the court to appoint a commissioner. The commissioner’s role was aimed at verifying physical parameters such as the age and size of the house structure purportedly under dispute. However, the petitioners’ reliance on precedents, notably Rama Avatar Soni v. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das and Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh and Others, was met with judicial skepticism given the nature of the suit.

In essence, while the petitioners argued that a scientific investigation was necessary to clarify disputed factual matters regarding the property, the court emphasized the already established clarity in the sale deed, thereby limiting the scope for such intervention.

Summary of the Judgment

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition (C.M.P. No. 1309 of 2023), ruling that the appointment of a pleader commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC was unwarranted in the present context. The key points in the judgment are as follows:

• The suit had been instituted for the recovery of possession based on the sale deed, which described the property areas clearly and was unanimously recognized by both parties.
• The petitioners’ request for a scientific survey to certify the age and size of the property was rejected on the basis that the contested issues were already sufficiently determined by the sale deed.
• The court referenced established precedents to illustrate that a commissioner’s report functions only as an aid to the trial court and is not meant to introduce new evidence where parties already possess clear documentary proof.
• The decision reaffirmed that Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC must not be routinely allowed in suits where the underlying fact-finding is already complete.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The counsel for the petitioners relied primarily on two precedents:

• Rama Avatar Soni v. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das: This case was cited in support of appointing a commissioner in circumstances where property details or a WILL required scientific verification. However, the court differentiated the present case on the basis that the dispute in question did not involve such inherently complex issues.
• Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi (Gyanvapi Mosque Committee) v. Rakhi Singh and Others: Here, the Supreme Court had clarified that scientific investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 (and by extension Rule 10-A) should ordinarily be reserved for instances where the issues have emerged during the trial. This principle significantly influenced the court’s conclusion in the present case.

These precedents provided a framework for judicial restraint, indicating that the appointment of a commissioner should be contingent upon the emergence of serious evidentiary issues, not merely as a routine measure when there is clarity from existing documents such as a sale deed.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning was fundamentally anchored in the following principles:

• Purpose of Commissioner’s Report: The court reiterated that the role of a commissioner is auxiliary—to elucidate matters in dispute rather than serve as the main evidence. This is in line with the rationale that the commissioner’s findings are secondary to the primary evidence already on record.
• Clarity Provided by the Sale Deed: Given that the suit was instituted on the basis of a sale deed, which clearly outlined the area and physical characteristics of the property, the request for further scientific investigation was deemed redundant.
• Threshold for Scientific Survey: As emphasized in the cited judgments, a scientific survey or local investigation should be ordered only when factual disputes have crystallized during trial proceedings. Since the issues in the current suit were already clearly defined, the court held that permitting a petition under Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC was procedurally premature.

Thus, by aligning with the established judicial doctrine, the court safeguarded its process from being diverted by unnecessary investigative procedures that might otherwise delay the adjudication of the main issues.

Impact

The judgment carries significant implications for future litigation involving property disputes and applications for the appointment of commissioners:

• Judicial Efficiency: The judgment reinforces the importance of relying on existing documentary evidence, such as sale deeds, particularly when such documents eliminate the need for supplementary factual investigations.
• Limiting Routine Interventions: Future courts are likely to adopt a more restrained approach in permitting routine scientific surveys under Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC. This ensures that commissioners are appointed only in cases with unresolved factual disputes.
• Guidance on Evidentiary Value: The decision elucidates that a commissioner’s report is adjunctive and subject to scrutiny through cross-examination and additional evidentiary submissions. This offers clearer guidance on how such reports should be weighed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several complex terminologies and legal concepts featured in the judgment merit clarification:

• Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC: This rule provides for the appointment of a commissioner to assist in ascertaining facts that are in dispute in suit matters. It is designed not to create additional evidence but to help clarify points that are otherwise ambiguous.
• Local Investigation vs. Evidence Collection: The local investigation refers to the process by which the commissioner inspects the property or matter in question. The evidence collected by the commissioner is supportive and helps the court build its factual matrix, but it does not override the primary evidence already submitted by the parties.
• Sale Deed as a Document of Evidence: In property disputes, a sale deed carries significant evidentiary weight as it describes the property in detail, thereby often resolving issues related to property dimensions, location, or ownership.

Conclusion

The Jharkhand High Court’s decision in this case underscores a principled approach to the appointment of commissioners under the procedural provisions of the CPC. By dismissing the petition for a scientific investigation under Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC, the court reiterated that when the issues are already addressed and verified by primary documents such as a sale deed, additional fact-finding measures are unnecessary.

This ruling serves as an important precedent reaffirming that judicial intervention through the appointment of a commissioner should be reserved for cases where there exist genuine factual discrepancies that cannot be settled through the available evidence. Consequently, the judgment promotes judicial efficiency and prevents unnecessary delays in property disputes.

In summary, the key takeaways are:

• The appointment of a commissioner is subject to the emergence of factual disputes during trial proceedings.
• The sale deed, when clear, precludes the need for further local investigation.
• Commissioners’ reports function as aids to the court rather than substitutive evidentiary records.
• This decision is likely to shape future litigation by discouraging routine petitions for scientific surveys where the factual matrix is already well-established.