IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.534 of 2005 1. RUDRA MOHAN PRASAD, Son of Late Binod Behari Lal, 2. Smt. Shilalal, Wife of Sri Rudra Mohan Prasad, Both residents of village Pachauri and at present resident of Mohalla – Quamrruddinganj, Town and P.S. Bihar, District – Nalanda … Defendant .. Respondent … Petitioners Versus 1. MOST.RENU SINHA , W/o lae Ramesh Pd. Sinha 2. Sweta Kumar @ Nitu, minor daughter of Ramesh Pd. Sinha 3. Swastieka Kumar @ Jonni, minor D/o Ramesh Pd. Sinha 4. Sone Sinha, Minor S/o Ramesh Pd. Sinha 5. Monu Sinha, Minor S/o Ramesh Pd. Sinha Opposite Parties no. 2 to 5 are under Guardianship of their mother Mostt. Renu Sinha 6. Prasant Kumar Sinha 7. Vikrant Kumar Sinha Both minor S/o Sri Surendra Kr. Sinha, under Guardianship their father Sri Surendra Kr. Sinha 8. Madan Mohan Prasad 9. Bisheshwar Prasad 10. Rajendra Prasad 11. Dukhi Lal Gupta Opposite party 8 to 11 are Son of late Khemlal O.P. Nos. 1 to 11 are resident of Mohalla Amber, P.S. Biharshariff, District Nalanda 12. Urmila Devi W/o Mahesh Pd. And D/o Late Khemlal, Resident of Mohalla Alinagar, P.S. Biharshariff, District Nalanda 13. Sri Pradip Kumar 14. Sri Dilip Kumar 15. Sri Sanjib Kumar All son of late Sahdeo Sah O.P. Nos. 13 to 15 are resident of Mohalla Ambair, P.O. Biharshariff, District Nalanda 16. Smt. Pramila Devi, D/o late Sahdeo Sah and wife of Sri Shital Sao, R/o Mohalla Sohsarai, P.S. Sohsarai, District – Nalanda - 2 - 17. Smt. Saroj Devi, D/o late Sahdeo Sao, and W/o Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad, R/o Mohalla Alinagar Town, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda 18. Smt. Nirmala Kumari, D/o Late Sahdeolal, and W/o Sri Anjani Kumar of Mohalla Malgodown Town, P.S. Nawadah, District Nawadah 19. Smt. Jyotasana Kumar, D/o late Sahdeo Sao and W/o Sanjay Kumar of village Asthawan, P.S. Asthawan, District Nalanda 20. Smt. Shyama Devi 21. Smt. Kamala Devi Both D/o Late Janman Sao 22. Sri Birji Prasad 23. Sri Dinesh Prasad 24. Sri Dharmendra Prasad All sons of late Ram Prasad Sao All 20 to 24 resident of mohalla Ambair, Mohuddinnuagar, Town + P.S. Behar, District Nalanda Plaintiffs - Appellants … Opp. Parties 1st set 25. Haish Chandra Prasad Priyadarshi, S/o late Balkishun Pd. Teacher Resident of Mohalla Ashanagar, P.S. Biharshariff, District Nalanda 26. Anand Priyadarshi, Minor son of Sri Harish Chandra Pd. Priyadarshi 27. Sadhana @ Mantu Kumari Minor D/o Sri Harish Chandra Pd. Priyadarshi Both under guardianship of their father Sri Harish Chandra Pd. Priyadarshi, R/o Mohalla Karunabagh, P.S. Biharshariff, District Nalanda 28. Shiv Shankar Yadav, Son of Late Sankhi Pd. Yadav (Retd. Teacher), R/o village Musepur, P.S. Rahui, District Nalanda 29. Rajo Yadav @ Rajbalabh Yadav 30. Prithavi Yadav, Both S/o Laknarain Yadav, Resident of village Belchhi, P.S. Manpur, District Nalanda ….Defendants .. Respondents 1st set .. Opp. Party IInd Set 31. Mostt. Sabitri Biswas, Wife of late Mantosh Biswas 32. Pinaki Ranjan Biswas 33. Milan Biswas Minor son on late Mantosh Biswas 34. Madhumia Biswas, Minor daughter of late Mantosh Biswas, - 3 - Minor O.P. nos. 32 to 34 under guardianship of their mother most. Sabitri Biswas, R/o Alamganj, P.W. and Town Biharsharif, District Nalanda 35. Smt. Sita Devi, Wife of Lase Fauzdari Lal 36. Sri Ashok Kumar Son of Late Fauzdari Lal, Both resident of mohalla Chaukhandi at present near Nalnda Collectorate and S.D.O. Court on Rajendra Path, P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda ..Defendants . Performa Respondent .. O. P. IIIrd Set For the petitioners : Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate For the O.Ps. : None . ----- 18 13.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties despite service of notice, though Vakalatnama had been filed on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 to 7, 8 to 11, 14, 15, 21, 23 and 24. Earlier on 26.4.2005, notice was issued to O.P. Nos. 1 to 24 on 26.4.2005 to show cause as to why this revision be not admitted and, if possible, disposed of at the admission stage itself. Despite that none has appeared at the time of hearing of this case. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No. V, in Title Appeal No. 01 of 1991, whereby the Court concerned has allowed the petition dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure 1 herein) filed by the appellants – opposite - 4 - parties for examination of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, namely, Sri Basudeo Narayan Verma. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid Advocate – Commissioner was appointed by the Trial Court and he had already submitted a report. Thereafter on consideration of all the facts, circumstances and evidences on record the Trial Court has passed the judgment and decree in the Title Suit No. 67 of 1981. The aforesaid judgment and decree has been challenged in the Title Appeal No. 01 of 1991 by the plaintiffs – opposite parties. In the aforesaid appeal, plaintiffs-opposite parties filed application with a prayer to allow appellants to examine the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, who had submitted his report before the Trial Court. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that simply four sentences order has been passed allowing the aforesaid prayer without assigning any reason as to what was the occasion for the Appellate Court for allowing the examination of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner at the stage of appeal who had submitted his report before the Trial Court itself. It is also submitted that by filing a - 5 - supplementary affidavit that no concession had been given by these petitioners before the Court below and even if no rejoinder was filed to the aforesaid petition, the Appellate Court was duty bound to pass a reasoned order showing the urgency and reason for examination of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner concerned at the appellate stage. It has further been stated that in the petition filed by the plaintiffs – appellants – opposite parties, which has been appended with the Civil Revision as Annexure 1, no sufficient reason could be disclosed by the opposite parties for the said purposes. In that view of the mater I am of the opinion that the Court has committed error in passing the impugned order dated 22.12.2004 without disclosing any reason for allowing the appellant for examination of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, who had been appointed by the Trial Court and had submitted its report before the Trial Court as the appellants – opposite parties could have made a prayer for his examination before the Trial Court itself. In that view of the matter, I, hereby, set aside the order dated 22.12.2004 and remit back the matter once - 6 - again to the Appellate Court concerned to decide the issue of examination of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner afresh after hearing all concerned parties and pass reasoned order in accordance with law within three weeks from the receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this civil revision is allowed. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) -----------