IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.131 of 2009 Bharat Kumar & Anr Versus Vijay Singh & Ors ---------------------------------- 12 20-9-2011 This revision application has been filed against the order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the Munsif II, Begusarai, in Title Execution Case No. 2 of 2007. The petitioners are aggrieved by the above said order dated 24- 12-2008 by which the learned court below has not accepted the report of the pleader commissioner with regard to delivery of possession and accordingly has accepted the petition dated 5-12-2008 filed by the judgment-debtor and thereafter posted the matter for further proceeding. There is no dispute that there was a suit for demarcation only between the parties and there is also no dispute that the said suit was decreed. Thereafter, it appears that Title Execution Case No. 02 of 2007 was filed for executing the decree. The executing court appointed a pleader commissioner for execution of the decree.The said pleader commissioner submitted his report before the executing court and thereafter an objection to the said report was filed on 5-12-2008 by the judgment-debtors. After considering the objection and hearing the parties the 2 executing court below has accepted the objection holding that there was specific instruction given by the court to the pleader commissioner by letter dated 25-10-2008 to follow the direction given in the decree passed in T.S. No. 96 of 2002. The executing court has also taken notice of the direction passed in the decree which was limited only to demarcation of he suit land and nothing more and thereafter the executing court has come to the finding that the pleader commissioner was directed only to demarcate the disputed land and not to effect delivery of possession to any of the parties by dispossessing any one. However, in his report dated 15-11-2008 the pleader commissioner had reported that the decree-holder had been put in possession after removing all the obstructions. In that view of the matter, the executing court has held that the pleader commissioner has exceeded in his limit and he has acted beyond the decree and the directions in the writ issued to him. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners during the course of his submission has accepted that the pleader commissioner had acted beyond his authority in effecting the delivery of possession which was against the terms of the decree under execution. 3 However, it has been submitted that the part of the report of the pleader commissioner with regard to the delivery of possession should have only been treated as illegal and without jurisdiction and the other part relating to the demarcation of the land should have been upheld as it was in accordance with the decree. The contention, in nutshell, is that the delivery of possession effected by the pleader commissioner is the demarcation of land which preceded the delivery of possession is valid and in accordance with the decree and should have been accepted by the executing court below. The perusal of the report of the pleader commissioner that in essence it appears to be a report of delivery of possession and the demarcation appears to have been done only for that purpose. The predominant purpose as it appears was to put the decree-holder in possession and the step of demarcation like other steps had been taken only in furtherance of that purpose. It is difficult to accept the act done for demarcation and the act done for delivery of possession as two independent complete actions and to bifurcate the same. Moreover, it is wholly within the discretion of the executing court to accept or reject the 4 report of the pleader commissioner as it is for the executing court to execute the decree, in accordance with law, to its satisfaction. The executing court was not satisfied with the conduct of the pleader commissioner and has held that the pleader commissioner had acted beyond the decree as well as the direction given to him by the writ and in view of these findings the executing court has not accepted his report with regard to Dakhal Dahani. There is no substance in the submission that only the delivery of possession, part of the report of the pleader commissioner, has been set aside by the impugned order and the other part relating to delivery of possession has remained intact. There does not appear to be any legal infirmity in the impugned order and there is no jurisdictional error. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)