IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.257 of 2009 Ram Narayan Yadav, S/o Late Banarsi Rai, R/o Mohalla- Salimpur Ahra, Gali No.3, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna. --Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1.Most.Lakhiya Devi ,Wife of Late Banarsi Rai. 2. Shyam Babu Yadav, Son of Late Banarsi Rai. 3. Suresh Kumar, Son of Late Banarsi Rai. 4.Ramesh Kumar, Son of Late Banarsi Rai. 5.Mostt. Prem Lata Devi , Wife of Late Ram Lakhan Yadav. 6.Munna Kumar, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Yadav. 7.Chhotu Kumar, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Yadav. All R/o Mohalla- Salimpur Ahra, Gali No.3, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, P.O.-Kadamkuan, District-Patna. ---------Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. ----------- 8. 08.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this second appeal. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the final decree after the dismissal of his appeal in the court below. There is no dispute that there was a partition suit in which a preliminary decree was passed under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. on the basis of the admission of the defendant of the claim of the plaintiff. The final decree proceeding was initiated and thereafter a pleader commissioner was appointed to separate the shares of the parties. The report submitted by 2 the pleader commissioner was challenged by the plaintiff by filing an objection to the same. The trial court considered the objection and after hearing the parties rejected the objection by his order dated 02.06.2006, confirmed the report and directed for preparation of the final decree. The plaintiff filed appeal and he reiterated all his objections to the report of the Pleader Commissioner before the appellate court. It appears from the perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate court that the objections of the plaintiff have also been considered by the appellate court and after finding no merit in the objections, the appellate court confirmed the impugned order/judgment dated 02.11.2006 of the trial court for preparation of the final decree confirming the report of the pleader commissioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously submitted that there has been no consideration of his objections by the courts below and as such he has been greatly prejudiced. He has further submitted that his share has been allotted on a narrow lane known as Dwarika Nath Lane whereas the other parties have been allotted their share on a wider road known as Tarkeshwar Nath Lane. From the perusal of the impugned judgments of 3 both the courts below it appears that initially a pleader commissioner was appointed but his report was not confirmed and thereafter another pleader commissioner had been appointed by the trial court. The objections of the plaintiff to the report of the subsequent pleader commissioner have been fully considered by both the courts and there is no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the courts below. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh (V.Nath, J.)