IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.490 of 2004 Jai Kumar Sharma, S/o Ram Ishwar Sharma, Resident of Village- Malahi, P.S. Sarai, PO Sarai, District-Vaishali …… Appellant Versus 1. Shiv Dhari Devi W/o Late Aswini Kumar Sharma, Resident of village- Akbar Malahi, P.S. Sarai, PO Sarai, District- Vaishali, Defendant First Party in the court below.. Resp. 1st. Party 2. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Sri Shiv Dev Sharma 3. Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Sri Umesh Prasad Sharma, both are resident of village Akbar Malahi, P.S. Sarai, P.O. Sarai, District-Vaishali, Defendant second party in the court below.. Resp. IInd party 4. Kaushalya Devi, W/o Ram Ishwar Sharma 5. Binay Kumar Sharma, S/o Ram Ishwar Sharma 6. Subodh Kumar Sharma, S/o Ram Ishwar Sharma, all are resident of village Akbar Malahi, P.S. Sarai, P.O. Sarai, District-Vaishali, Defendant third party in the court below.. Resp. IIInd party ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Ratan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ganpati Trivedi and Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocates ---------- 9. 9.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. By order dated 11.7.2008 this Court had appointed Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha No.3, as the Advocate Commissioner so as to visit the suit property and submit his report within one month. However, the said Advocate Commissioner did not act as per the direction of this Court and went to the spot as late as on 29.12.2008. In his report he has made various statements including there being no partition between the appellant and respondents. He has made further reference to existence of a Janana Nikas. He has also stated that some construction has been made by respondent nos. 2 and 3 after the order of status quo was passed on 11.7.2008. By filing I.A. No. 1211/2010, the respondent nos. 2 2 and 3 have objected to the report of the Advocate Commissioner stating that he has submitted his said report without any field book or any details of measurement of the plots involved in the suit. He has further objected that no mention has been made as to how the plots were identified and how it could be ascertained about the existence of the building over particular plots. The finding regarding there being no partition has also been challenged as being beyond the power given to him by the Court. Further, the statement that the construction had been made after 11.7.2008 has also been challenged as being without any basis and beyond the purpose for which the Advocate Commissioner had been appointed, moreso when he himself caused delay of four and a half months in going to the spot and giving report, and has submitted his report merely to save his face. This Court finds sufficient force in the said objections on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Advocate Commissioner had not been appointed to report that there was any partition in the family, but only to visit the suit property and submit his report. Even the said report does not appear to have been made in accordance with the scientific method of measurement, etc. as rightly objected by respondent nos. 2 and 3. He was also not required to report on the status quo granted by the same order by which he has been appointed Advocate Commissioner only to report about the current status of the 3 property. Thus the report of the Advocate Commissioner cannot be accepted. In their I.A. No. 1211/2010 apart from the objection made against the report of the Advocate Commissioner, an undertaking has been given by the respondents that they are not going to make any construction over the lands involved in the suit. In view of the undertakings given by respondent nos. 2 and 3, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press this appeal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall be bound by the undertakings which they have given before this Court of not making any further constructions until the decision of the suit. This Court however, takes note of the submission of learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 that in case any such urgent necessity arises, they may be permitted to make constructions/repairs with the permission of the learned trial court. The said liberty is granted. Since the suit itself is of the year 2003, the learned Sub Judge-I, Vaishali at Hajipur is directed to dispose of the Title Suit No. 478/2003 expeditiously. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)