IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.394 of 2009 1. M/S Shree Panna Mills at Bounshi Road Mojahidpur through joint property of the owners of landlords 2. Shri Shankar Prasad Dhandhania son of late Rai Bahadur Banshidhar Dhandhania (Deceased) 3. Sri Sanjay Kumar Dhandhania son of late Hariprasad Dhandhania 4. Sri Alok Kumar Dhandhania son of late Sheo Prasad Dhandhania 5. Sri Nawal Kishore Dhandhania son of late Sheo Prasad Dhandhania All by profession landlords, Trade and business, resident of Mohalla Dr. Rajendra Prasaad Road, Khalifabagh, PS Kotwali,District Bhagalpur ....(Defendants) Petitioners Versus M/S Pradeep Safe & Steel Works at Panna Mills Compund, Bounshi Road, PS Mojahidpur through its Proprietor Pradeep Kumar Tibrewal, resident of Mohalla Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, Khalifabagh, PS Kotwali, District Bhagalpur ....(Plaintiff) Opposite Party ----------- 04- 18/11/2011 Heard Mr. Bimlendu Mishra for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners presses IA No.4301 of 2010, under Order 22, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for substitution of petitioner no.2 (Shankar Prasad Dhandhania) who has died on 6.3.2009, leaving behind his heirs mention in paragraph -1 of this application. The present application was filed on 29.4.2010. In the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the substitution application is condoned, and the abatement, if any, is set aside. Let the name of deceased petitioner no.2 be expunged and be substituted by his heir who has already entered appearance through counsel and filed duly executed Vakalatnama. IA No. 4301 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. 2. The defendants of Title Suit No.53 of 2004 have filed this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 2 are aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2009, passed by the learned Munsif II, Bhagalpur, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff (opposite party herein) for appointment of a survey-knowing Pleader Commissioner has been allowed. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that report of a survey-knowing Pleader Commissioner is at best a piece of evidence subject to objection of the other side and the final orders of the court. Appointment of survey-knowing Pleader Commissioner does not mean that his report will bind the parties. Furthermore, in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the impugned order and the reasons assigned by the learned trial court, we are of the view that the learned trial court has passed an appropriate order. 4. This civil revision application is dismissed. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )