IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21583 of 2011 Mahendra Sharma Versus Sita Mani Devi & Anr ---------------------------------- 03. 14.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Munsif, Aurangabad in title suit No.109 of 2004 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner dated 22.12.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial has not commenced and even the plaintiff has not started adducing his evidence. At the instance of the plaintiff, Pleader Commissioner was appointed who submitted the report and after submission of his report, the plaintiff filed objection to the Pleader Commissioner report and also prayed for appointment of another Advocate Commissioner on the ground that the Pleader Commissioner appointed had not scientifically measured the disputed plot but the learned Court below has illegally rejected the said prayer. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Curt below after considering the submissions of the parties came to the conclusion that the report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner - 2 - and the map filed by him are according to the order passed by the Court. So far the question regarding fixed point is concerned, the Court below observed that the said question shall be decided at the time of Judgment after considering the entire evidence on record. The learned Court considering these materials available on record held that at this stage, the examination of the Pleader Commissioner as special witness is also not necessary. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case that the Court below after examining the material available on record came to a definite conclusion, in supervisory jurisdiction, this Court cannot substitute its own finding as it is well settled that if two views are possible and one possible view has been taken by the Court below, in supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court has no jurisdiction to take another possible view with a view to supervise the order passed by the Court below. I, therefore, find no merit in this application. Therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)