IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2093 of 2006 CHANDRAMA GIRI SON OF LATE FULENA GIRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAMHARI, P.S. BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. Versus 1. JAMADAR BHARATI SON OF SHIVNATH BHARATI 2. PRABLAD BHARATI, SON OF JAMADAR BHARATI. 3. SANJAY BHARATI SON OF JAMADAR BHARATI 4. AJAY BHARATI SON OF JAMADAR BHARATI. 5. UMRAWATI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF JAMADAR BHARATI AND WIFE OF BIRENDRA GIRI. 6. MANJU DEVI DAUGHTER OF JAMADAR BHARATI AND WIFE OF SHAMBHU BHARATI. 7. RANJU KUMARI DAUGHTER OF JAMADAR BHARATI. 8. SANDHYA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF JAMADAR BHARATI, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BALAHA, P.S. BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 9. CHANDRIKA GIRI SON OF LATE FULENA GIRI 10. UMA SHANKAR GIRI SON OF LATE FULENA GIRI 11. RUKMINI DEVI WIFE OF BABAN GIRI, DAUGHTER OF LATE FULENA GIRI, ALL OF VILLAGE GAMBARI, P.S. BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S ARUN KUMAR PRASAD, KAPILDEO SINGH AND BIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATES. 3/ 13-08-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the objection raised by the stamp reporter with regard to maintainability of this case. The stamp reporter has reported that against the impugned order appeal would lie as this is an order confirming the Pleader Commissioner’s report. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.09.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-1, Gopalganj in F.D. 23/68. Pleader Commissioner was appointed therein for carving out “takhta” in accordance with the shares of the respective parties as per the preliminary decree. After hearing the parties, the report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner has been confirmed by the court below. The question, as to whether against the aforesaid confirmation of Pleader Commissioner’ - 2 - report an appeal would lie or a civil revision would lie, has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the of Suresh Kumar and others Vrs. Nagendra Kumar Labh, reported in 1997 (2) PLJR- 456 . The relevant passage from the aforesaid case is quoted hereunder: “Paragraph-11: In my view, a bare reference to the explanation attached to sub-section (2) of Section 2 read with that stipulated under Rule 14(3) of Order XXVI, it would reveal that no revision can be maintainable against an order, confirming Commissioner’s report. We have already indicated that as per explanation attached to sub- section (2) of section 2, a decree is preliminary, when a proceeding is required to be taken before the suit can be finally disposed of. But it is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. Thus, if a court confirms or varies the report of Pleader Commissioner after adjudication such report shall form part of the decree. The aggrieved party against such confirmation can only prefer appeal after the decree but no revision would be maintainable.” In view of the above, I hold that the civil revision is not maintainable and is thus dismissed. However, since confirmation of the Pleader Commissioner’s report is necessarily followed by drawing up a decree, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge such confirmation by preferring an appeal against the decree following such confirmation of Pleader Commissioner’s report. If the petitioner prefers an appeal before the appropriate court against such decree after confirmation of Pleader Commissioner’s report concerned along with a petition for condoning the delay, then the same shall be decided by the court concerned in accordance with law considering the fact that the petitioner was bonafide prosecuting this civil revision before this Court. BTiwary/ ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J )