IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1851 of 2007 CHANDRIKA PRASAD Versus RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS ----------- 03. 07.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is finally heard at this stage at the instance of the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 22.05.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge, 8, Motihari ( East Champaran), rejected his objection filed against the report of Advocate Commissioner during the preparation of the final decree in Partition Suit No.219 of 1995. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for partition of the suit land and on contest the said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was prepared on 27.08.2003 against which the defendant filed First Appeal No.292 of 2003 which is pending. It transpires that thereafter final decree proceeding started in which pleader commissioner was appointed for Takhtabandi etc. and subsequently the pleader commissioner submitted his report on 22.02.2007 after Takhtabandi etc. Against the said report the defendant-petitioner filed an objection dated 23.04.2007 raising several objections which has been rejected by the learned court below by its impugned order dated 22.05.2007. The learned court below has considered the entire - 2 - matter in detail and after perusing the allotment chart, survey map and the deeds in question it was specifically found that defendant Ist Set had sold valuable land during the pendency of the suit, but in spite of that defendant Ist Set have also been allotted valuable lands. It was also found that the learned Commissioner while making allotment of land specifically observed principle of equity and it could not be validly shown that allotments have not been properly made by the learned Commissioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. However, the defendant- petitioner, if he so likes, may raise all these objections in the appeal, if preferred against the final decree after its preparation. With the aforesaid observation, this civil revision is dismissed. sunil ( S.N.Hussain,J.)