IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1716 of 2006 SURESH KUMAR JAIN, son of Late Mohan Lal Jain, Proprietor of Sagar Shree Vastralaya, K.P. Road, P.S. Kotwali, Post Office Gaya Chowk, Distt. Gaya………………………..…. Defendant … Petitioner Versus DR. SANJAY GUPTA, son of Late Uma Shankar Prasad, resident of Mohalla – K.P. Road, Gandhi Chowk, P.O. Gaya Chowk, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Gaya…………………….... Plaintiff…Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 24.02.2009. Heard Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant – petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2006, passed by the Munsif 1st, Gaya in Eviction Suit No. 28/2003, by which the petition of the defendant dated 18.01.2006 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining the facts, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff – opposite party had brought a suit for eviction under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) on the ground of personal necessity. By filing Annexure-1, the defendant had made a prayer to the court below for passing appropriate order under Order XII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a - 2 - notice for admission of certain facts was served upon the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant again filed a petition, as mentioned in Annexure-3 to his Civil Revision, with a prayer for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining certain facts, as the reply of the plaintiff to his notice was vague. It goes without saying the suit was brought on bona fide ground of personal necessity and for which proceedings are well described in Section 14 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary civil revisional jurisdiction. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )