IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.132 of 2009 VIDHYACHAL SINGH, SON OF LATE SAHDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DASAUTI, POLICE STATION MOHANIYA, P.O. SONDHI, DISTRICT-ROHTAS (SASARAM) ----DEFENDANT/PETITIONER Versus 1. FERU SINGH SON OF JAI MANGAL SINGH 2. SINGASAN SINGH SON OF FERU SINGH 3. KASHI SINGH SON OF FERU SINGH. 4. PRABHU SINGH (MINOR) 5. PREM SINGH (MINOR) 6. RAMESH SINGH (MINOR) 7. SANJAY KUMAR (MINOR) 8. CHILD OF 3 MONTHS (MINOR) NAME NOT KNOWN ALL FROM 4 TO 8 ARE THE MINOR SONS OF SINGRAM SINGH UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER SINGASAN SINGH AND ABOVE ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DASAUTI, POLICE STATION MOHANIYA, P.O. SONDHI, DISTRICT-ROHTAS (SASARAM) ---PLAINTIFFS-OPPOSITE PARTIES 1ST SET. 9. DULHIN SOMARIYA DEVI, W/O SAHDEO SINGH. 10. SAHDEO SINGH SON OF LATE RAMPATI SINGH 11. MAHATIM SINGH SON OF LATE SAHDEO SINGH. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DASAUTI, POLICE STATION MOHANIYA, P.O. SONDHI, DISTRICT-ROHTAS (SASARAM) ----DEFENDANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES 2ND SET. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. V. Nath, Adv. Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 3. 30/1/2009 Defect No. 7 as pointed out by the Stamp Report is ignored. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2008 whereby the trial court has allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs for appointment of Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for ascertaining area of disputed portion of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier - 2 - also a petition was filed on 14.2.2007 for the same purpose before the trial court which was rejected and thus the second application was not maintainable and hence, it should have been rejected by the court below. The trial court in the impugned order dated 14.11.2008 has clearly stated that there is a dispute with regard to certain portion of land as its area has been shown less in the revisional survey in comparison with the area given in the Cadestral Survey. Further, the trial court has stated that while dismissing the earlier petition with regard to appointment of Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner by the order dated 14.2.2007, which is on record of this Civil Revision as Annexure-1, it was made clear that the question of appointment of Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose could be gone into after the closure of evidence on behalf of the parties. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the trial court is satisfied that the measurement of the disputed plot concerned by Survey knowing Pleading Commissioner is necessary for deciding the lis between the parties. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 14.2.2007. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)