N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.99 of 2010 Md. Jahir Alam Versus Anwar Karim & Ors. ---------------------------------- 7 27-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30-11-2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, West Champaran, in Title Appeal no. 20 of 2001 affirming the final decree dated 5-12-2000/22-12-2000 passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st, Bettiah in Partition Suit No. 60 of 1990. Admittedly, there was a suit for partition in which the preliminary decree was passed declaring 1/3rd share of the plaintiff in the suit property. The said preliminary decree was accepted by the parties and no appeal was filed against the same. Thereafter on the prayer of some of the parties to the suit a final decree proceeding was initiated and a pleader commissioner was appointed for effecting partition in accordance with the decree between the parties. After submission of the report of the pleader commissioner an objection was filed by the appellant to the said report, but the said objection was rejected by the trial court after 2 hearing the parties and the report of the pleader commissioner was confirmed. Against the order confirming the report of the pleader commissioner the appellant filed C.R.No. 1674 of 2000 before this Court. However, this civil revision application stood dismissed for default by order dated 16-1-2001. The present appellant thereafter filed T.A.No. 20 of 2001 challenging the said order and the final decree prepared on that basis. This appeal has been dismissed holding that after the dismissal of the civil revision application, the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge the same order again in appeal because in the appeal also either directly or incidentally the validity of the report of the pleader commissioner is to be determined. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellate court below has erred in law in dismissing the appeal even when the final decree had been passed without fixing valuation of the suit land. It has been further submitted that the appellate court below should have gone into the objections raised by the appellant to the report of the pleader commissioner which had been wrongly confirmed by the trial court. There is no dispute that the order confirming the 3 report of the pleader commissioner rejecting the objection of the appellant had been challenged before this Court in C.R.No. 1674 of 2000, but the same had been dismissed. It is well-settled that after the dismissal of the civil revision application the order of the court below would stand affirmed on the basis of doctrine of merger. This issue has been considered by this Court in the case of Sita Sah Vs. Ram Jatan Prasad, reported in 1998(3)PLJR 227 wherein it has been held that after the dismissal of the revision application the order which stood affirmed after the dismissal of the revision application cannot be assailed in appeal before the same court. Moreover, it is also well- settled that an appeal against the final decree in the first appellate court is in the nature of second appeal and is maintainable only on the finding of existence of substantial question of law. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision in the case of[ Ganesh Chandra Jha V. Parmeshwar Thakur] reported in 2001(4)PLJR 378. In view of these discussions, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the appellate court below. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. 4 This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)