IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2279 of 2006 SUDARSHAN MAHTO, SON OF LATE BHAGELU MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-VRINDAVAN, P.S. UCHAKAGAON, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. ………………………………………………..DEFENDANT-PETITIONER. Versus 1. MOST.SONA @ MOST.SOMA , WIFE OF LATE BHAGELU NONIA, DAUGHTER OF LATE BALA NONIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- VRINDAVAN, P.S. UCHAKGAON, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ……………………………….PLAINTIFF……OPP. PARTY IST SET. 2. JAIMANGAL MAHTO. 3. PRABHU MAHTO. BOTH SONS OF LATE BHAGELU MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-VRINDAVAN, P.S. UCHAKGAON, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ…………DEFENDANT……OPP. PARTY 2ND SET. 4. SHIV MANGAL MAHTO, SON OF LATE BHAGELU MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-VRINDAVAN, P.S. UCHAKGAON, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ…DEFENDANT..OPP. PARTY 3RD SET. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Plaintiff-Opposite Party Ist set : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 2. 3.9.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the plaintiff- opposite party Ist set. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.11.2006 passed in Title Suit No.95/02 by the learned Sub Judge-IX, Gopalganj, whereby he had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for the appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was necessary to appoint survey knowing Pleader Commissioner to determine the controversy involved in this case between the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff- Opposite Party Ist Set submitted that the evidence on behalf of the parties had already been - 2 - closed and the case was running for argument. Thus, it was not at all required to appoint survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. The court below after hearing the rival submissions of the parties rejected the prayer of the petitioner on coming to a finding that the main controversy between the parties was as to whether the plaintiff was the daughter of Bala Nonia and whether Bala Nonia had died in 1960 or 1950. It has also been stated in the impugned order that the question of possession between the parties is immaterial. I do not find any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 6.11.2006 by the court below. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)