1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 271 of 2025 M/s Dozco India Pvt. Ltd. a private Limited Company Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 represented by its Authorized Representative namely, Niket Kumar Sinha aged 40 years, son of Sri Awadheshkumar Sinha, resident of Kumharpatti, Manaitand, P.O. P.S. and District-Dhanbad ……… Petitioner VERSUS 1. Smt. Priyamnanda Agarwal, wife of Sri Chetram Agarwalla, Resident of Luby Circular Road, Behind SSLNT Mahila College, P.O., P.S. and District-Dhanbad 2. The State of Jharkhand .…… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate For the State :Mr. Suresh Kumar S.C. (L&C)-II Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II ………. 04/Dated: 25/03/2025 Heard Mr. Suraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-VIII-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 57 of 2020. Further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the said Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is defendant in Original Suit No. 57 of 2020 has purchased suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.11.2017. He further submits that suit was instituted for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession. He further submits that in the said suit petitioner/defendant filed petition under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of the C.P.C. and it was rejected as not pressed by order dated 13.06.2024. He further submits that for recall of the said order petition dated 30.07.2024 has been filed which has been rejected by the learned court 2 by order dated 25.09.2024. He further submits that for determination of the area of the suit property appointment of pleader commissioner is necessary however, the learned court has rejected the petition and has not recalled the earlier order and in view of that appropriate order may kindly be passed by way of setting aside the impugned orders. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that learned court has rightly passed considering that petition for recall of order was not affidavited. 5. The Court finds that petition under order XXVI Rule 10(A) of C.P.C. has been filed and the petitioner has not pressed the same in view of that the learned court has been pleased to pass the order dated 13.06.2024. If such a situation is there, there is no illegality so far that order is concerned. 6. The Court has further perused order dated 25.09.2024 and finds that on several dates the case was adjourned and the petitioner/defendant did not come for hearing thereafter said petition has been filed. 7. The suit was instituted for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession and in that case the petition under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) has been filed for appointment of pleader commissioner. In the light of the provision made under the said order stipulates that in any suit in which the court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profit or damage or annual net profit, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. 8. Under the above Rule, the Court has a discretion to order local investigation or not. The object of local investigation is not such so much to collect the evidence which can be taken in court, but to obtain evidence from its peculiar nature and only be had on the spot. Cases of boundary disputes 3 and disputes about the identity of lands are instances when a Court should order a local investigation under this Rule. It is further not in dispute that at any stage the said petition can be filed and it is for the Court to consider whether pleader commissioner is required to be appointed or not. 9. Considering this aspect of the matter and further looking into the impugned orders the Court finds that the learned court has given cogent reason in not recalling the order dated 13.06.2024 and thereafter dismissed the said petition. There is not illegality in the impugned orders. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.