IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1092 of 1997 KAROO PANDEY SON OF LATE RAJALAL PANDEY OF VILLAGE HASANPUR, P.S. CHANDAUTI, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- GAYA... APPELLANT Versus 1. SMT.LALO DEVI WIFE OF JANARDAN PANDEY, VILLAGE- HASANPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- GAYA 2. SMT SUMITRA DEVI D/O LATE SHREE PANDEY AND WIFE OF JAGDISH PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINRHA, P.S. KHIZARSARAI, DISTRICT- GAYA. RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 2-4-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant in respect of limitation petition ( I.A. No. 707 of 1998 ). In spite of notice nobody has appeared to oppose the said petition. In the facts of the case the delay of 69 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. The I.A. stands allowed. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the case. For the purpose of challenging the finding given by learned Single Judge that the case of the defendants of earlier partition in 1934 was well established, it was submitted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court was not properly considered by the learned single Judge. On going through the judgment under appeal and particularly paragraph-16, we find that the said report has been properly considered - 2 - Naresh along with other relevant materials such as separate payment of rent for 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the entire land by the plaintiff/appellant and the other side which was in accordance with the defence case. We find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order under appeal and hence this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J ) - 3 - Naresh