IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.948 of 2008 SACHIDANAND SINGH & ANR Versus BIDYA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 03.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners seem to be aggrieved by order dated 27.5.2008, whereby and whereunder, the court below has rejected prayer of the petitioners for appointing another survey knowing Pleader Commissioner after rejecting the repot of the earlier Pleader Commissioner, who had submitted such report on 18.9.2007. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the court below has committed material irregularity in not allowing such application because earlier report of the Pleader Commissioner dated 18.9.2007 was wanting in many respect. In the opinion of this Court, the provisions made under order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the C.P.C is sufficient for discretion of the court below to take decision on the report of the Pleader Commissioner and if the court below has recorded the following findings:- “After going through the detailed reports dated 18.9.07 of Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, I find that he started the proceeding in presence of both the parties measuring the plot in question after fixing a fixed point, on the basis of recent map prepared after survey. Again, on plain reading of the report dt. 18.9.07 from page 5 onwards, it is manifestly clear that he mentioned all the facts which appear to be incorporating all the points raised by the plaintiff in his petition dt. 28.5.07 which I mentioned here- inbefore. In view of the above facts, I do not find any infirmities in the report of the Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner submitted on 18.9.07.” 2 This Court cannot substitute its opinion on such exercise of discretion of the Court below especially when the counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any error of record in the aforementioned findings of the court below. Be that as it may, this Court in exercise of power under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not like to interfere with the discretion of the court below as according to this Court there is no material irregularity and/or jurisdiction error in the impugned order. There being no merit in this civil revision application, the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar/