IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.89 of 2007 TAKESHWAR JHA & ORS Versus SURJBALI JHA & ORS ------------ 02. 07.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 09.11.2006 by which the learned Additional Munsif-IV, Begusarai, rejected part of the prayer of the petitioners in their petition dated 20.09.2006 praying for issuance of Dasti Summon against the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner Kamaldeo Prasad Yadav. The learned court below has considered the matter in detail and thus found that the first survey knowing Pleader Commissioner Sri Kamaldeo Prasad Yadav was appointed vide order dated 16.02.1998 whereafter he submitted his report but his report was rejected on 23.01.1999 whereafter a second survey knowing Pleader Commissioner Sri Vijay Kumar Chaudhary was appointed on 01.10.1999 but he did not submit his report till 10.09.2004 and consequently the writ was withdrawn from him. However, the said order was challenged by defendant before this Hon’ble Court which was pleased to direct the second survey knowing Pleader Commissioner to submit his report whereafter the said Sri Vijay Kumar Chaudhary submitted his report on 26.05.2006 after completing the survey. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has rightly rejected that part of the petitioner’s petition by which the earlier survey knowing Pleader Commissioner Sri - 2 - Kamaldeo Prasad Yadav was pleaded to be summoned. Furthermore, the learned court below has rightly directed the new survey knowing Pleader Commissioner Sri Vijay Kumar Chaudhary for his examination as his report was under consideration. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)