IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10783 of 2011 Pappu Mandal Versus Rajendra Mandal @ Raj Kumar ---------------------------------- O R D E R 13. 25.10.2011. 1. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary on behalf of the respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant- petitioner against the order dated 07.12.2006 passed by Sub Judge Ist, Munger in Title Suit No.70 of 1981 whereby the learned Court below rejected the report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner pursuant to the preliminary decree. 3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for partition claiming 1/6th share in the joint family property. On 22.07.1988, the preliminary decree was passed. During the final decree proceeding, the Pleader Commissioner was appointed and the Pleader Commissioner submitted his report. An objection was filed by the plaintiff-respondent to the Pleader Commissioner’s report. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 07.12.2006, the learned Court below rejected the Pleader Commissioner’s - 2 - report. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Pleader Commissioner with the consent of the parties and their respective lawyers allotted takhta to the parties but the learned Court below rejected the same on the objection of the plaintiff. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the Takhta allotted by the Pleader Commissioner is not according to the consent of the parties. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Pleader Commissioner was examined in this case as witness. The learned Court below considered the evidence of the pleader Commissioner very minutely and in the impugned order refers various paragraphs of the Pleader Commissioner evidence and found that Pleader Commissioner has not allotted share and curve out Patti properly and scientifically. The learned Court below also considered the point raised by the petitioner before this Court and found that there was no such agreement between the parties which is evident from the ordersheet dated 21.03.2004 of the Pleader Commissioner. 7. In view of the above fact, it is clear that the - 3 - order passed by the Court below is based on appreciation of the evidence of Pleader Commissioner. 8. The learned Court below also considered the point raised by the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court in supervisory jurisdiction cannot turn itself to an appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence of the Pleader Commissioner again and substitute its own finding. Moreover, in supervisory jurisdiction, the legality or otherwise and the correctness or otherwise of the Pleader Commissioner’s report cannot be examined. The view taken by the Court below is also a possible view, so, the High Court will not take the other possible view by appreciating the evidence. I, therefore, find that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction. Therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna The 25thday of October, 2011 Sanjeev/N.A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)