Case Background
The dispute arises from a title suit over agricultural land in Begusarai district, Bihar.
The plaintiff (respondent no. 1 before the High Court) filed Title Suit No. 188 of 2013 in the court of the Sub Judge, Begusarai. In that suit, the plaintiff claimed a declaration of bona fide right, title and interest of his joint family over certain land described as Schedule II property.
The Schedule II land was said to be part of a larger block of land described as Schedule I. Both schedules mentioned land in Khata No. 326, Plot Nos. 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433. Schedule II was stated to be milzumla area 1 bigha 13 katha out of Schedule I land measuring 9 bigha 12 katha 9 dhurs.
The defendant (present petitioner) entered appearance in the title suit and filed a written statement contesting the plaintiff’s claim over the land.
During the progress of the trial, after examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, the plaintiff filed an application on 02.03.2022 under Order 26 Rule 10 and 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Through this application, the plaintiff requested appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner.
The purpose of this appointment, as stated in the application, was to measure the land and determine whether the total land area of 9 bigha 12 katha 9 dhurs was one block or not, along with any other connected points raised by the plaintiff.
On 11.05.2023, the Sub Judge, Teghra, allowed this application and ordered appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner.
Aggrieved by this order, the defendant/petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 765 of 2023, challenging the legality and validity of the trial court’s order dated 11.05.2023.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, heard arguments from both sides. The central question before the Patna High Court was whether the trial court’s order appointing a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner could stand in the absence of recorded reasons.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court had allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order 26 Rule 10 and 10-A and Section 151 of the Code without due consideration of facts and legal principles. According to the petitioner, the court cannot be used as a tool by a party to collect evidence in its favour.
The petitioner contended that appointment of a Pleader Commissioner at this stage would serve only to enable the plaintiff to gather evidence through the court’s process, which is not permissible. Reliance was placed on an earlier decision of the Patna High Court in Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Anoj Kumar & Ors., Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 917 of 2017, decided on 06.02.2025.
In that case, the Court had held that it is not the function of the court to collect evidence for one party. Particularly in matters involving disputed questions of fact such as possession, the power to appoint a commission for local investigation cannot be exercised merely to assist one party in collecting evidence which it can gather itself.
The petitioner also relied on the three-Judge Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padam Sen and Another vs. The State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218, which lays down the limits of the court’s powers in appointing commissioners and using its procedural tools.
Another key plank of the petitioner’s challenge was that the impugned order of the Sub Judge was completely non-speaking, that is, it did not contain any reasons explaining why appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner was considered necessary.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1 (the original plaintiff) defended the order. It was submitted that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s decision to appoint a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner.
The respondent emphasized that the application had been filed after the examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, and the purpose of appointing the commissioner was to assist the court in proper adjudication by having an accurate measurement and understanding of the land.
According to respondent no. 1, the appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner did not cause any prejudice to any party and was only an aid to the court in deciding the case. On that basis, it was argued that the petitioner’s challenge to the appointment itself was not justified.
To support this stand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 referred to earlier decisions of the Patna High Court, including:
First, the decision in Tabarak Khan @ Md. Tabarak Khan vs. Niraj Kumar Agarwal & Anr., Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 1693 of 2019, decided on 09.12.2019, where a learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner appointed to assess the physical features of the suit property.
Second, the decision in Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Smt. Sobha Sharma & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19298 of 2015, decided on 18.04.2019, where the Court held that appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, being only an aid in adjudication and not causing prejudice to either party, did not suffer from illegality. In that case, it was also observed that if any party had grievance about the report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, it could file objections to the report.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court did not go into the detailed merits of whether a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner was required in this particular land dispute or whether such appointment amounted to collecting evidence for one side.
Instead, the High Court focused on a more fundamental flaw: the absence of reasons in the trial court’s order dated 11.05.2023.
The Court perused the impugned order and found that the learned Sub Judge had not considered or discussed the reasons justifying appointment of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner. The order did not explain why such a commission was necessary, what factual dispute required such assistance, or how it would aid in the adjudication.
The High Court reiterated the settled legal principle that judicial and quasi-judicial orders must contain reasons. Reasons are an essential part of any decision-making process and form the basis on which higher courts can examine the correctness of the decision.
In this context, the Court referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4664, which held that “reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion”. Without reasons, a conclusion cannot be sustained in law.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496. In Kranti Associates, the Supreme Court had held that reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct, and that a mere pretense of reasons or “rubber-stamp” reasoning does not fulfill the requirement of a valid judicial order.
The Patna High Court noted that the judgment in Kranti Associates stresses the importance of reasoned judicial orders and elaborates on why reasoning is considered the soul and heart of justice. An order without reasons deprives the parties of understanding why their arguments were accepted or rejected.
Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the Sub Judge’s order appointing the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, being bereft of reasons, could not be sustained. The defect was not about the power to appoint such a commissioner, but the failure to exercise that power with a reasoned, speaking order.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 11.05.2023 on the ground that it lacked reasons. However, the Court made it clear that it was not deciding the dispute over the commissioner appointment on merits.
Instead, the Court directed the trial court to pass a fresh, reasoned order on the plaintiff’s application dated 02.03.2022. The Sub Judge was asked to do so within one month from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the High Court’s order.
With this direction, the Patna High Court allowed Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 765 of 2023, giving the parties an opportunity to have the application decided again, this time with clear reasons that can be understood and, if necessary, challenged in law.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment of the Patna High Court is significant mainly for its strong reaffirmation that every judicial order must contain reasons.
For litigants in land disputes and other civil cases, it highlights that trial courts cannot simply allow or reject applications—such as for appointment of survey commissioners—through one-line or non-speaking orders.
Without reasons, parties are left in the dark about why a particular step is being taken in their case. Moreover, higher courts cannot meaningfully review such orders.
By setting aside the order and sending the matter back, the Patna High Court has reinforced that lower courts must apply their mind to the facts and law, and must explain their conclusions in simple, clear terms.
This approach protects both sides. If a commissioner is appointed, the order must explain why it is necessary. If the request is rejected, the order must explain why that relief is being denied. In either situation, parties can understand the logic and decide whether to accept the outcome or challenge it further.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can an order appointing a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner in a title suit be sustained when it does not record any reasons for such appointment?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that an order bereft of reasons cannot be sustained and therefore set aside the trial court’s order, directing it to pass a fresh, reasoned order. - Issue: What is the immediate consequence of a non-speaking order by a trial court regarding procedural applications like appointment of a commissioner?
Answer: The immediate consequence is that such an order is liable to be set aside, and the matter remanded to the trial court to reconsider and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4664
- Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496
- Padam Sen and Another vs. The State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218 (relied upon in submissions)
- Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Anoj Kumar & Ors., Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 917 of 2017, Patna High Court (relied upon in submissions)
- Tabarak Khan @ Md. Tabarak Khan vs. Niraj Kumar Agarwal & Anr., Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 1693 of 2019, Patna High Court (relied upon in submissions)
- Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Smt. Sobha Sharma & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19298 of 2015, Patna High Court (relied upon in submissions)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 765 of 2023
Case Title: Smt. Kamini Devi vs. Ram Balak Prasad & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Date of Judgment: 03.04.2025
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 737
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Binod Kr. Singh, Advocate; Mr. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate
Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Shardha Nand Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Civil miscellaneous petition challenging an interlocutory order in a title suit (order appointing Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner) passed by the Sub Judge, Teghra, in Title Suit No. 188 of 2013.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjNzY1IzIwMjMjMSNO-DirLeOq7wgQ=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
