IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6587 of 2010 1. RAMESHWAR NATH PANDEY, S/O LATE BASAWAN PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE-CHHITANI, P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. Versus 1. VINOD PANDEY, S/O LATE RAJNATH PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI, P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 2. PRAMOD PANDEY, S/O LATE RAJNATH PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI, P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 3. AWADHESH PANDEY ALL SONS OF LATE RAJNATH PANDEY. 1 TO 3, R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI, P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT- ROHTAS…….DEFENDANT/RESPONDNETS IST SET 4. SHRIKANT PANDEY, S/O VINOD PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI, P.O- CHATRA,P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 5. MOST. FULA KUER, W/O LATE RAJ KISHORE PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI, P.O - CHATRA,P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 6. MOST. NAWKI KUER, W/O LATE RAJ KISHORE PANDEY, 4 TO 6 R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI, P.O - CHATRA, P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS……….. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS IST SET 7. RAM KAWAL PANDEY, S/O KHORI PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI,P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 8. TILAKDHARI PANDEY, S/O KHORI PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI,P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 9. GAURI SHANKAR PANDEY, S/O LATE BASWAAN PANDEY 7 TO 9 R/O VILLAGE - CHHITANI, P.S - DAWATH, DISTRICT- ROHTAS……… PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS 2ND SET 10. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, PATNA……. RESPODNENT 3RD SET ----------- 02. 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is stated to be plaintiff in the suit is aggrieved by the order dated 5.01.2010 passed by the Additional Munsif-II, Bikramganj, District-Rohtas in Title Suit No. 30 of 2000 rejecting the prayer for appointing a fresh survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. Learned counsel submits that the Pleader 2 Commissioner has submitted a wrong report with regard to the lands of the petitioner itself when he was required to submit his report with regard to other lands. The impugned order holds that once a Pleader Commissioner had been appointed and has submitted his report, there is no occasion for appointment of a fresh Pleader Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that immediately on the next date after the Pleader Commissioner inspected the lands, the petitioner had filed any petition in the suit with regard to the conduct of the Pleader Commissioner. In any event of the matter, the report of the Pleader Commissioner is not sacrosanct and does not result in its ipso facto acceptance by the trial court as the ultimate truth. It is only an aid in the decision making of the case. The evidentiary value of the report will have to be considered in light of any objections that may be filed to the report. With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)