IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7797 of 2010 1. Sudama Devi W/O Late Babuelal Kumar R/O Mohalla- Raj Tank Laxmipur, P.S.- Laheria Sarai, Distt.- Darbhanga 2. Shailendra Kumar S/O Late Babuelal Kumar R/O Mohalla- Raj Tank Laxmipur, P.S.- Laheria Sarai, Distt.- Darbhanga. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Darbhanga 2. Dev Narayan Kumar @ Kislay S/O Late Raghunandan Kumar R/O Mohalla- K.M.Tanki, P.S.- Laheria Sarai, Distt.- Darbhanga 3. Most. Chandrakala Devi W/O Late Amrendra Kumar R/O Mohalla- Khaja Sarai, Post- Laheriasarai, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga 4. Dharmendra Kumar @ Sunil Kumar S/O Late Amrendra Kumar R/O Mohalla- Khaja Sarai, Post- Laheriasarai, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga 5. Samrendra Kumar S/O Late Chhatradhar Kumar R/O Mohalla- Khaja Sarai, Post- Laheriasarai, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga 6. Bimlendra Kumar S/O Late Chhatradhar Kumar R/O Mohalla- Khaja Sarai, Post- Laheriasarai, P.S.- Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga 7. Smt. Manju Devi W/O Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Engineer, D/O Late Amrendra Kumar R/O Vill.- Shitalpur, P.S.- Bidupur, Distt.- Vaishali 8. Smt. Ranju Devi W/O Shri Rajiv Kumar Singh, Engineer, D/O Late Amrendra Kumar R/O Vill.- Shitalpur, P.S.- Bidupur, Distt.- Vaishali 9. Shanti Devi W/O Late Arvind Kumar, D/O Chhtradhar Kumar, S/O Late Kapildeo Singh Advocate, Dumra Court, Dumra, Distt.- Sitamarhi 10.Prem Devi W/O Shri Uday Singh, D/O Late Chhatradhar Kumar R/O Vill.- Kuari Madani, P.S.- Majorganj, Distt.- Sitamarhi 11.Sheela Devi W/O Shri Binod Singh, D/O Late Chhatradhar Kumar R/O Vill.- Bhorha, P.O.- Belsand, P.S.- Belsand, Distt.- Sheohar 12. Mridula Devi W/O Shri Kameshwar Singh, Engineer, D/O Late Chhatradhar Kumar R/O Vill.- Basuki Bihari, P.O.- Basuki Bihari, Via- Benipatti, P.S.- Benipatti, Distt.- Madhubani 13.Most. Asha Chaudharain W/O Late Rama Shankar Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Majholia, P.S.- Ashok Nagar, Paper Mill, Distt.- Darbhanga. --------------------- 2 2. 20.10.2011. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist, Darbhanga in Partition Suit No.102 of 2007, whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to appoint a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner while allowing the petition filed by the defendants respondents on 9.2.2009 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’). The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners seeking partition of the property set out in Schedule-I of the plaint. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff petitioners as well as the defendant respondent nos.2 to 12 belong to the same family. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants mentioning therein that each of the parties is in possession of the respective plots and that there is no dispute with the same. It was mentioned that the spot verification of the suit property would prove that the suit in question is 3 vexatious and has been filed as a mere hoax and that the parties to the suit are in their respective possession since 12 years. It was contended that the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 are already in possession of the western part of C.S. Plot No.2245 read with Plot RSP No.1337 and have a residential house; the middle portion of C.S. Plot No. 2245 read with R.S.P. No. 1338 measuring an area of 2 katha 2 dhur is in possession of defendant respondent no. 2 Deo Narayan Kuer and his heirs and that the defendant nos. 5 and 6 and heirs of Chatradhar Kumar are having their residential houses over the eastern portion of the amalgamated plot bearing C.S. Plot No.2245 and 2216 read with RS Plot No.1339 having an area 4 katha 4 dhurs. In the aforesaid circumstances, a prayer was made by the defendant-respondents for verification of the possession by a Pleader Commissioner through scientific investigation and measurement. Considering the prayer aforesaid, the learned court below by the impugned order has allowed the application and directed for 4 appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for proper adjudication in the interest of justice. I find no any infirmity in the order passed by the learned court below which is within the confines of the power vested under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)