IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.202 of 2008 Jageshwar Pandey son of late Kapildeo Pandey Resident of village Sikandra, P.O. and P.S. Sikandra, District Jamui. ……Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. Ram Gobind Mishra son of late Harihar Mishra Resident of Sikandra, P.O. and P.S. Sikandra, District Jamui. ………Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set. 2. Subodh Pandey 3. Pramod Pandey Both are sons of Jageshwar Pandey Resident of Sikandra, P.O. and P.S. Sikandra, District Jamui. ……….Defendants-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioner : Mr. Nagendra Dubey, Advocate. For the Opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 08.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed by defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 28.11.2007 by which learned Additional Munsif-III, Jamui allowed the plaintiff’s application for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner in Title Suit No.50 of 2001. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party 1st set for declaration of his title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants who filed their written statements, whereafter issues were framed and evidence started. It transpires that on 26.09.2007 the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner and the defendants filed their objection to the plaintiff’s application on 20.11.2007. The said application of the 2 plaintiff was allowed by the leaned court below vide its order dated 28.11.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below, but it is quite apparent that the learned court below considered the entire matter in detail and thereafter came to the specific conclusion that the appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was necessary for the purposes of elucidating the matter in dispute. In the said circumstances it is quite apparent that the learned court below was satisfied that the report of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was necessary for elucidating the actual matter in dispute. Hence the appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner under the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure appears to be necessary. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )