IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1340 of 2006 DINANATH CHAUDHARY & ORS Versus SURESH PANDEY ----------- 2 30.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly the impugned order is with regard to the direction to the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner to make a measurement of three plots including plot nos. 887 and 888. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that as the suit was confined only to plot no. 896, there was no occasion for the Court below to pass an order for also measurement of the other plots namely plot nos. 887 and 888. In the opinion of this Court, first of all, this issue was to be raised at the earliest instance in the year 2003 when an order passed for appointment of the Pleader Commissioner even in respect of plot no. 887 and 888. That having been not done, the petitioners today cannot be allowed to raise a grievance against that order in the garb of seeking a review of the order. That apart, from the plaint, it is absolutely clear that the dispute with regard to plot no. 896, actually relates to identifying and locating of land and 2 for that purpose, if the application has been allowed by the Court below for also measurement of adjoining and contiguous plots nos. 887 and 888, that by itself, will not vitiate the impugned order. Infact there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, this application is absolutely misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)