IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.269 of 2009 1. NOOR MOHAMAD SON OF LATE SUKATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – FATHA SAHBARWA, P.S. AND DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 2. BIBI SAKINA DAUGHTER OF LATE MOHAMMAD TAIYAB. 3. MOSMAT MAHIOODAN @ MOSMAT MAHIBANA WIFE OF LATE MOHAMMAD TAIYAB. 4. NOOR JANAT DAUGHTER OF LATE SIDDIQUE. 5. UMDAN DAUGHTER OF LATE SIDDIQUE. 6. YAQOOB SON OF LATE SIDDIQUE. 7. MD. AZAMS 8. MD. ALI 9. MD. ALAM NO. 7, 8 AND 9 ARE SONS OF LATE MOHAMAD TAIYAB. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – KARMAINI BAZAR, P.S. – PATHERWA, DISTRICT – DEORIA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE – FATHA, SAHBARWA, P.S. AND DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ -------- PLAINTIFFS-DECREE HOLDERS-PETITIONERS. Versus 1. SHEIKH GAFFAR SON OF LATE ATIL HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-FATHA SAHBARWA, P.S. AND DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 2. ALI RAZA SON OF LATE SIDDIQUE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KARMAINI BAZAR, P.S. – PATHERWA, DISTRICT DEORIA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE-FATHA SAHBARWA, P.S. AND DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ------ DEFENDANTS-JUDGMENT DEBTROS-OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Shanti Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajit Lal, Advocate. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. --------- 2. 18/2/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The Plaintiffs-Decree holders-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Munsif, Gopalganj, in Final Decree Case No. 157 of 1994 whereby the court below has refused to accept the report dated 10.6.2002 of the Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the objections raised were technical and merely formal in nature, - 2 - thus, the report should have been accepted by the court below. The trial court on due consideration of the rival submissions and on appreciation of the fact that suit concerned has been decreed only for 9 Katthas and 10 Dhurs so far the plot no. 961 is concerned, whereas the Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner has partitioned 14 Katthas and 16 Dhurs of land and also on consideration of other objections, has come to the conclusion that the report dated 10.6.2002 of the Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner is not acceptable. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 23.12.2008. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)