IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9477 of 2011 GOBARDHAN PRASAD CHOUDHARY Versus BIRENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHARY & OR ----------- 02. 21.06.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 17.02.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge VIII, Bhagalpur passed in Title Suit No.128 of 2005 whereby the learned Court below has confirmed Advocate Commissioner’s report holding that the report is correct and genuine. Mr. J.S. Arora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that still the evidence has not been commenced but the learned Court below has found the Advocate Commissioner’s report as correct and genuine. According to the learned counsel, if that finding is not set aside, it will greatly prejudice the petitioner at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The learned counsel further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner is not competent to give report regarding as to on which plot the house was constructed. In fact, it is within the jurisdiction of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner only. However, since as has been admitted still 2 evidence has not been commenced and, therefore, the order passed by the Court below can be corrected finally at the time of final hearing. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all these questions regarding the correctness or otherwise of the Pleader Commissioner’s report at the time of hearing of the suit and if this point is raised, the learned Court below shall consider afresh without being influenced by impugned order. With this observation, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)